Gib Case

The applicant has also alleged an injury to his neck, left upper extremity and left lower extremity. These claims have been denied.

3. The Claimant’s amount of the sequence of events relating to the treatment in question. Care should be taken to avoid importing text and phraseology from medical records or reports that the Claimant would not use in the normal course of discussing the case.

(3) PN. Cases in which the CE has determined, and the Supervisory Claims Examiner has verified, that no wage-earning capacity exists require medical evidence as

On the SSA 832, the FO indicated the POD is 3/31/15. The FO indicated work after 3/31/15 should be considered a UWA and other work is under SGA. A review of the file shows the claimant does not meet the Stat Blind requirements. DI 25501.220.B.2 requires the DDS to consider the POD given by the field office when determining the EOD and make a final determination. In this case, there is no evidence in file that suggests the DDS considered this POD.

6. Received 2 pay stubs from wife 07/10/16- 07/23/16 and 08/21/16-09/03/16 . Need most recent pay stubs.

· Please do not comment on dates previously approved. If there are previously approved dates, these will be noted on the main claims summary referral page (beginning of records PDF file)

I, kirolos Girgis would like to appeal regarding the design you took toward my claim. Trustfully I did not voluntary leave work. I had a family issue that made me not able to work in the morning, so I contacted my manger and asked him for a different shift to work. However, he did not have any shift available, and he told me to check with him again in two weeks. I contacted him again after two weeks and he did not have anything available. In the meantime, I was looking for other opportunities thru different companies and I was out of luck. Therefore, I claimed that I am unemployed so I could start receiving benefits that would help me pay my rent and my bills. Since I cannot find another job yet and my unemployment claim is on pend, lately

basis in the contract has been recovered. Guarantees, including those for optional benefits, are subject to the claims-paying ability of the appropriate issuing company. Limitations and conditions apply.

All available documentation submitted for this claim has been reviewed from the perspective of Internal Medicine. The claimant is a female (DOB 07/08/1978) who is claiming disability from 07/10/2017 to 07/31/2017. The claimant works as a Senior Operations Production Coordinator, with job demands such as continuous sitting. The basic description of work was performed via a computer daily.

Occupational Health: Patient is disabled and unable to work. Denies any health problems related to previous employment.

22. Smart also seeks a declaration that RTE was in breach of contract failing to inform it that a referential bid would be invalid.

The next claim was the Nizam Kljajic vs Fitzgerald Finishing claim. The claimant alleged injuries to his back along with carpal tunnel syndrome. He initially requested vacation time prior to filing a claim. He did not indicate a specific event. He was sent for an IME and the results did show some back pathology. However, the claimant had been treating for back issues for many years unrelated to his job. The claim was facilitated and some value was assigned to this claim. Ms. Hadley

This file has recently transferred to me for further defense handling. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding this matter. It is my practice to return all communications within 24 hours, if possible. I look forward to working with you on this matter as we bring this claim to an equitable conclusion. Please consider this letter a status update on this claim.

The case in question concerns Romanian nationals who were refused a grant of benefits by way of basic provision by Jobcenter Leipzig on 28 September 2011. After they were refused a second time they lodged an administrative objection which was dismissed. On 1 July 2012 Ms Dano and her son challenged that decision before the Sozialgericht Leipzig .

II She did not notified nor submitted her PC to the company and therefore the company had no knowledge of the claimant securing PC for the year 2007.