Kellie Redding Case Summary

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.

She alleged from the time she has known of Mr. Arauz she never experienced anything unusual about him until his last day of work on October 12, 2016. She claimed that from what she is aware of, Mr. Arauz has never reported, demonstrated, exhibited, or complained about any reportable mishaps at work, which resulted in an injury. She said that the injuries which he is alleging were never brought to her attention by either Mr. Arauz or with any other co-workers who may have witnessed something else differently.

At 5am Officer Singh called SA Lyn Brumaire who was on duty at Coral Tower because Jordan Horvat was worried a resident of 902, Stephanie Lee, was missing. Upon keying into the room with PSO Tabiri, the resident in questions, Stephanie Lee was found to be missing from her apt. Officer Tabiri then decided to take a statement from SA and resident Macayla Caso. Ms. Horvat was also not present in the room. Ms. Caso was under the assumption that Ms. Horvat had gone home since she was packing earlier in the day and the sheets were stripped off her bed.

Dr. Swartz then indicated based on the questionnaire completed by the injured worker at the time of his evaluation in or about June 2016, the applicant’s activities of daily living were not significantly effective. It is noted on the record the injured worker claimed he was able to do various activities. Based on the

Witnesses Gustavo and Armando said they refute the claimant’s CT: 6/2014 through 6/2015 which included cumulate trauma of injuries to the claimant's shoulders, back, lower extremities, left elbow, hands, fingers, legs, knees, stress and anxiety. The also contested the specific claim of injury that allegedly occurred on 2/2015 when the claimant alleged injured his back, lower extremities and left knee at work.

Sgt. Wilson and Cpl. Arreola recalled the claimant called in sick on LDW: 11/18/2015; when the claimant said he was “Too stressed out to come to work.” The claimant’s two supervisors found that the claimant’s attitude and work performance declined as soon as he was transferred to the Day Reporting Center in March 2015. They found some unexcused absenteeism is from the claimant in conjunction with the claimant’s regular day’s

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

Kathy has a weight bearing restriction in place, is currently utilizing a wheelchair for mobility, and is a hands on one person assist with transfers. Judy shares that the previous day Kathy and the physical therapist worked with Joe and herself on transfers into and from the car so they can take her to her scheduled appointment with the orthopedic doctor on Friday. Judy shares that it is expected that the doctor will modify the weight restriction at the appointment. Judy and SSA spoke about a time frame for discharge. Judy shares there is no time frame established. Per Judy, Kathy’s private insurance only has twenty days of physical therapy remaining in the plan and does not know what happens at the end of the twenty days if Kathy needs additional therapy. She has plans to contact Humana later this day to discuss Kathy’s insurance benefits. We discussed that Kathy believes she has an UTI and that a sample of her urine was taken before lunch for testing. We discussed that Kathy is satisfied with the Care Springs facility, the food served, and nurses assigned to work with her. During the visit, Kathy asked about Wildey staff and of all who was aware of her injury. We discussed her

Anthony Macias does not have a valid claim for workers’ compensation because he was not under employment during the time of his injury as defined by Labor Code section 3600, where at the time of his injury was not performing services growing out of his employment, nor was he acting within the course of his employment; his injury occurred during a social-athletic activity by his own choice.

By way of background, Fulton County is responsible for a New York State Workers’ Compensation claim, WCB# 50413999 with a date of accident of 10/01/2003. The case has been established for an injury to the neck by Administrative Decision filed on 12/29/2004. A copy of that decision is attached hereto as exhibit A. The case was later amended to include right carpal tunnel syndrome and

1. Occupation and working ability of the Claimant, if this has changed, since the injury, previous occupation of the Claimant.

As you know, the case is established for an injury the neck and right shoulder with an average weekly wage of $707.03. She has not had any compensable lost time and the issue now is one of permanency.

On the claimants LDW he recalled the claimant came into the front office to discuss the most recent verbal altercation he had with her on 4-21-15, when the claimant refused to listen instructions at the sorting table at the Packing Department. During that time of her meeting with Mrs. McClellan the claimant was

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.