Judge Burke Case

That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Plaintiff, O’ROURKE was and still is a resident of the County of New York, State of New York.

On December 29, 2015, a beneficiary hearing was held at the request of Mr. Jeffery Williams. The hearing was requested to appeal the denial of Medicaid benefits due to an unfavorable disability decision.

Petitioner’s counsel raised the issue of whether BISD improperly included legal counsel in ARD meetings in her May 26, 2015 Motion. BISD filed a written response and exhibits contesting the issue and the question of whether BISD improperly included legal counsel in ARD meetings was determined by Hearing Officer Kilgore via June 2, 2015 Order (“Order 8”) . Therefore, whether the District improperly included legal counsel in the

A visit note from Dr. Carico, dated 06/20/2017, indicated that the claimant continued to have

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.

David: the Hearing Officer found the following “Subparagraphs B-D. These are procedural allegations distinct from the subject matter of the Beaumont I final order that can be litigated in the instant case.” I have to agree. These are actual issues for the trier of facts.

This is the Evidentiary Hearing for Andrew Thomas the defendant who filed this claim after he was convicted of an armored vehicle robbery in 1998. Mr. Thomas filed this case to vacate the sentence that he received when he was convicted; due to new evidence that came to light that he claimed his original

Attorney Larrabee indicated that Sedgwic simply stopped paying weekly benefits without providing any explanation. Thus he filed the present action to preserve his client’s

Statement of Facts: James River Insurance Company issued two insurance policies to Scarsella Brothers Incorporated that provided coverage for liability related to Scarsella’s work on a WSDOT highway project. The claims against WSDOT came from a traffic accident in 2009 that occurred near Scarsella’s highway project. A suit was filed in King County Superior Court, and Scarsella was included as a defendant, WSDOT sent a letter to Scarsella with a request for defense to the suit under the insurance policies. James River attempted to initiate arbitration to the binding arbitration provisions, WSDOT objected and filed a “declaratory judgment action against

As you know, this case is established for an injury to the back with an average weekly wage of $1,012.85. We previously defeated the claimant’s efforts to move this case to a later date of accident with a higher average weekly wage and a higher rate of compensation. We have also converted his payments from temporary total disability to temporary partial disability as of February 2017.

Procedural History: Plaintiff brought suit against defendant, alleging claims of breach of confidentiality agreement, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation and fraud to which injunctive relief was sought. Defendant moved for summary judgement on all causes.

Please select several dates in the near future to schedule Ms. Lawrencia Smalls for an appointment with Pat, you, and myself. I will facilitate the meeting. The objective of the meeting is to review all the information from Ms. Lawrenica Smalls' last case, the Impartial Hearing Officer's decision, and the Administrate review. If nothing has changed in regards to the Ms. Lawrencia Smalls circumstances and if Lawrencia does not activity participate in the meeting. At this time it may appear the status quo remains the same.

This matter was before the Attorney Referee on Tuesday, June 06, 2017, for a hearing on Defendant-Father’s Objection to Uniform Child Support Order immediate effect dated April 19, 2017, at which time Plaintiff and Defendant appeared in pro per. However; the Defendant-Father left the hearing before it concluded and slammed the door on his way out.

(Appellant’s Brief at 12, 15 (quoting Leisner, 252 Md. at 555 (“There does not have to be an expressed intention to substitute the new agreement for the previous contract.”)). Not only does this conclusion belie the terms of the 2007 agreement that expressly incorporate the AIA Contract, but this conclusion defies common sense. The parties do not dispute that the 2007 agreement arose out of a payment dispute between WCS and Metropolitan. The bargain reached in that agreement was a compromised sum of payment to WCS in exchange for the release of WCS’s claims for payment. Neither the text of the 2007 agreement nor the circumstances of that transaction evince any reason why the parties would have agreed to revive National Surety’s subrogation rights, as those rights had nothing to do with the subject of the 2007 settlement agreement. Stated differently, the consideration exchanged in the 2007 agreement indicates that the Waivers did not come within the scope of that agreement.

(b) Having ascertained the current state of the suit, the relevant documents and applications will be filed on my behalf in the Supreme Court, to further resealing process.