Case Study Of New York State WorkersCompensation Law

Thank you for the signed retainer with our firm to handle your Workers’ Compensation Medical Provider Applications. The Workers’ Compensation Court allows us to recover for authorized and emergency treatment on behalf of your patients through the Workers’ Compensation Court. In our experience, most of these cases have been resolved amicably with the insurance carrier. However, there are various issues that we encounter as a part of our representation of Medical Providers in Workers’ Compensation Court.

On Monday, 11-16-2015 she recalled the claimant had punched in early for work that morning and did not say anything to her until shortly later around mid-morning when the claimant came into her office. She said the claimant was brief with her when she requested to file a Workers’ Compensation claim for her alleged right wrist injury coupled with pain to her right fingers. She claimed that her injury was work-related, and her injury occurred on 11-12-2015.

Zamudio, Human Resources Administrator and acting custodian of personnel records of the Domino Realty Management Company who allowed access, and copies in support of any relevant information pertaining to any injuries, had located a “Work/School Status Report” under the name of the “Talbert Medical Group.” The document had placed the claimant off from work from 2-5-01 through 2-5-01 for pain to the claimants left knee, and yet, according to Ms. Zamudio, the document did not state that a work related injury occurred as there were no other documentation in support of an injury. Furthermore, the witnesses had not cited any job related incidents where the claimants left knee from 2001 had been injured were the alleged 2001 left knee had been irritated or exacerbated in any

On Thursday, 10/22/2015 the claimant stated he reported for work pain-free and was not suffering from any pain or discomfort from four other work related injuries that he reported as claims and received judgments. The claimant was unable to account for the real dates of his past work-related injuries that occurred between 2010 and 1/2013. The claimants past industrial-related injuries ranged from a left wrist injury, head injury and two separate right wrist injuries which he says did not include any injury to any other body parts.

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

Appellee violates the federal fair labor standard acts by designating an employee as a “manager” who is entitled to overtime pay when that employee’s primary job responsibilities do not require supervising other employees or exercising independent judgment, but do require day to day maintenance activities as well as retail sales.

Employer offers management consulting and outsourcing of services for numerous private companies and federal agencies throughout the country. Claimant was originally hired on 4/3/12 as a Human Performance Practitioner in the state of Virginia. (Exhibit 1: Offer Letter) The contract for hire was not entered into in the District of Columbia but rather the Employer’s principal place of business located at 1525 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA. Moreover, on 4/3/12 the Claimant lived in Great Falls, VA and on the date of the subject accident, 5/6/16, Claimant lived at her current residence in Front Royal, VA. On 5/6/16 Claimant was working on a project for Employer’s client, “Leidos” to support the U.S. Department of Defense. The Claimant was assigned

I am pleased to report that we were able to settle your Workers’ Compensation case for the total amount of $135,000.00 which was $5,000.00 more than you authorized me to accept. The net to you per our fee agreement will be $108,000.00 tax free. We will have paperwork for you to sign within the next week or two. After that, we will present the settlement to a Worker’s Compensation Court Judge for approval.

Respondent sought compensation from her employer Comcare under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Commonwealth). It was argued that she suffered injuries during the course of her employment.

On the Statement of Medical Necessity on MG-2 form dated 03/14/16 by Dr. Charles Gordon, patient presented with neck pain. The symptom is alleviated by injections and medication. It is located in the mid neck area, trapezius muscle, and in lower cervical/shoulder area. It is d described as pressure, shooting and burning, and radiating to the scapula and shoulder. Plan is to undergo a left cervical facet rhizotomy at C3-4, C4-5 and C7-T1 then right cervical facet rhizotomy at C3-4, C4-5 and C7-T1.

The claimant alleges that her current claim to her bilateral wrists, elbows, arms, shoulders, neck, and upper and lower back, resulted from a CT claim from her former employer The View Corporation. The claimant alleges the CT claim she filed occurred during the early months of 2012 when she worked at The View Sonic Corporation. She could not recall the dates of when the CT claim were.

I represented Ricardo Tolentino for an Indiana Workers Compensation Claim. His employer’s insurance company, Erie Insurance, processed and handled Mr. Tolentino’s medical costs. The senior adjuster at Erie Insurance who handled the claim was Mr. Jeffery Knauf. His claim number is 096-010610260035 and his telephone number is (855) 457-2908. Attorney Robert Doyle defended the claim and his telephone number is (317) 635-7700. The Indiana Workers Compensation Claim was processed and eventually resolved per the Board’s approval. The file number was C-226482.

He testified he felt the claimant was at maximum medical improvement and had a rating of 3-B under the Board Permanency Guidelines. I asked him to explain how he reached his opinion and he indicated that since this case involved both the neck and the left shoulder it was not amendable to a schedule loss of use. He then turned to Table 11.2 for soft tissue spine injuries. He stated the claimant had complaints with supporting imaging studies and therefore, under the Table 11.1 the appropriate rating would be 3-B.

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.

External causes have everything to do with medical conditions, complications (due to procedures), or injures due to the environment (cold, heat, radiation, water pressure), mechanical (product or device events), or care management. The diagnosis codes should contain the suitable seventh digit to properly classify rather the encounter was an initial (A), a subsequent (D) or a sequela or it would be incomplete. This information helps the insurance companies decipher what stage the episode of care was at. Codes used for external causes are T66-T88. Codes for external causes of morbidity consists of (V00-Y99), where V, W, X, and Y are used as first characters to categorize the code blocks. The significance of the classifications is to define if