Analysis Of The FBI Case

Is this a case when the physician should be called to the telephone because of the threat of an impending suit?

Contrary to the alleged, Dr. Brock refuted the claim, defending that he never established a doctor-patient relationship with Anita, which relieves him of liability. In order to validate his refute, Dr. Brock provided four factual elements that were supported by his counterparts; Dr. Whitfield and Dr. Ketcham. The four elements that were presented in the affidavit included: (1) That there has never been a doctor-patient relationship between Dr. Brock and Anita Oliver, (2) Dr. Brock has never seen or talked to Anita or Cathy Oliver, (3) Dr. Brock was not employed, engaged or requested to serve as a consultant to treat Anita, (4) and Dr. Brock was not employed or engaged to consult with doctors treating Anita, concerning complaints or medical problems. In order to support Dr. Brock’s refute, Dr. Whitfield and Dr. Ketcham provided affidavit’s as

Gonzales was first employed by the Plaintiff in this case on December 2, 2014. He met with the Plaintiff on January 12, 2015. He discussed with the Plaintiff her prior medical history and performed a physical examination. He then reviewed the Plaintiff’s medical records.

COME NOW, PLAINTIFF, by and through her attorney of record, Corey Lightner, Esq.. of YOUNG’S LAW FIRM, and hereby files their Motion for Summary Judgment. The rule governing this matter is Rule 1.510(c) of

See Electcrostim Med. Servs., Inc. v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 962 F. Supp. 2d 887, 898-99 (S.D. Tex. 2013) (granting motion to dismiss); Encompass Office Solutions, Inc. v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., No. 3:11-cv-02487-L, 2012 WL 3030376, *8-*9 (N.D. Tex. July 25, 2012) (denying motion to dismiss); Team Healthcare/Diagnostic Corp. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Tex., No. 3:10-cv-1441-BH, 2012 WL 1617087, *6 (N.D. Tex. May 7, 2012) (denying motion to dismiss); Mid-Town Surgical Ctr., LLP v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tex., No. H-11-2086 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2012) (granting motion to dismiss); DAC Surgical Partners, P.A. v. United Healthcare Servs., Inc., No. H-11-1355, 2011 WL 3841946, *6 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2011) (denying motion to dismiss);

This correspondence shall confirm that the undersigned appeared at applicant’s attorney’s office in Stockton, California on April 18, 2017, to complete the applicant’s deposition. The handling attorney, Mr. Rod McClelland, was unable to attend the applicant’s deposition due to an unavoidable calendar conflict. This file will be returned to Mr. McClellan for further defense handling.

Redding stated that she saw the claimant report to work pain-free without wearing any orthopedic wrist-guards or braces on her right wrist. That same afternoon, an employee informed her that the claimant was inside one of the exam rooms with Mr. Luis Taylor, a Physical Therapist. She was informed the claimant was being treated for a right wrist injury that may have occurred outside of work, as Mr. Taylor conducting a courtesy exam for the claimant since she was an employee. Ms. Redding could not recall whom the employee has who informed her about Mr. Taylor NIL the

In referring to the allegations of the particular claim and to the CT claim of injuries which Mr. Arzuz has alleged within his post-termination claim, she argued that Mr. Arzuz had never reported or complained about the underlying medical conditions which he is complaining about to the body-parts which were affected by his claim. For the short amount of time he has been employed with her company, she said Mr. Arzuz’s sedentary position which requires very little physical activities to perform the job is not fast-paced or repetitive since the physical actions with the use of hands and fingers to assemble light pieces of motherboards require very little repetitious movements. After going through Mr. Arzuz’s personnel file, she found he never made a

Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Robert Higgins and Teresa Higgins (the “Higginses”) and Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Richard Hargrove and Kathleen Hargrove (the “Hargroves”), by their respective undersigned counsel, hereby submit this Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.

Ms. Almanza claimed she researched and provided the claimant’s entire personnel file for this investigation and stated she was not aware of any industrial-related injuries associated with the claimants said injuries, by noting that no treating physicians ever provided any causation or the implied injuries. She provided proof with the claimant’s personnel file taken into as evidence by stating there was no medical evidence, doctors note or request of modified work duties to suggest any medical

Your affiant interviewed C1’s attending doctor. IT reported that IT visually examined C1’s injuries. The injuries were appeared to be minor. IT further reported that C1 was under influence of alcohol and pending other medical testing report.

On December 24, 2015, I forwarded this claim to law department because I was unaware that the claims should be going to Stephanie Zimberg.

As requested, I have reviewed the facts of the above-captioned file, along with the applicable law and summarized same in this memorandum. Mrs. Mary Smith suffered an injury to her right ankle in an automobile accident on 10/3/95. After surgery and months of rehabilitation, Mrs. Smith still suffers daily. I have researched the facts regarding a personal injury action against Paul Joseph, as well as a medical malpractice action against the medical providers.

Because Dr. Fichtel has not treated the Plaintiff in seven years, he is not in a position to give an opinion as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries. Prior to him giving an opinion as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s cervical spine injuries, he would have to examine her, which he has not.

Physician has not done a good job of developing evidence in support of his counterclaims other than his own testimony. Local counsel reports Physician’s counsel primarily practices in the criminal courts and