Permanancy Case Paper

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.

We found that both witnesses claimed that there was no correlation to suggest that any of these alleged injuries specified by the claimant’s attorneys and by the claimant himself occurred or where the claimant suffered a stroke. Also, both witnesses were unaware if the claimant was experiencing any non-industrial stressors or if there were any outside non-work related factors that would suggest the claimant was suffering from any psychological problems and/or issues because of his employment.

The undersigned attended the Mandatory Settlement Conference at the Stockton Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board on June 14, 2017. The undersigned appeared on behalf of Mr. Rod McClelland. Mr. McClelland had an unavoidable calendar conflict on the day of the hearing; therefore, I appeared on his behalf on a one-time basis. The file will be returned to Mr. McClelland for further handling. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact myself or Mr. McClelland.

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.

He stopped working on March 1, 2013, the day of his injury. He has been working at his brother’s lawn mower repair shop. He basically comes and goes as he is able and is always paid $320 a week, regardless of how much time he spends at work. He has collected 26 weeks of Unemployment Insurance Benefits and was approved for Medicaid Disability with a $5,000 deductible every six months. He did not get Worker’s Compensation and has been denied Long Term Disability by his private insurer.

As you know, this case is established for the low back with an average weekly wage of $578.90. The claimant has been classified with a permanent partial disability and payments are continuing to him at the marked rate of $289.45. By Notice of Decision filed on 01/10/2007, Section 15(8)(d) was established in this case.

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

I attended a hearing on your behalf in the above matter before Judge Burke in Hudson, New York, on 05/17/2017. The claimant was present and represented by attorney Ed DeLauter. Your insured, Robert George, was present to give testimony.

The client was aware that the cellular device was aware that the phone was not being sold anymore. She also stated that it had been almost five years since the phone has not been in use or in a working condition. Also the phone is a flip and in today’s society it is very rare to see someone using a model phone like that or buying one.

Mr. Gillespie is a 21 year old male who presented to the ED after an intentional overdose on 20 600mg of Gabapentin. Per documentation from ED staff Mr. Gillespie reported he became angry at his grandmother tonight and tried to "prove a point." Mr. Gillespe reported to staff threatened to overdose on his on pills, however dumped them in the toilet. He expressed after making threats to overdose on his prescribed Celexa did not phase his grandmother, he proceeded to take her Gabapentin. Per documentation Mr. Gillespe has been living with grandmother for 2 weeks and before that was living with his mother in Cary. At the time of the assessment Mr. Gillespie was calm and cooperative. He denies current suicidal ideation, homicidal ideation, and symptoms of psychosis. He appears guarded during the assessment. He reports tonight his grandmother and he got into an argument over him getting a job. He reports his grandmother informed him he has to be out by Friday. Mr. Gillespe denies history of self harm. He

Having a physical disability may effect a persons ability to work and therefore they would need income support and “out

On January 11, 2012, Mr. Stoy had an Independent Medical Examination done by Oregon Medical Evaluations associated with Mr. Stoy’s August 2008 workers compensation claim. During the evaluation it indicated that Mr. Stoy’s low back problems first developed in 1988 or he got into an altercation along the Siskiyou’s Summit chain area. The second episode occurred about a year or two later when Mr. Stoy was moving a patient from an air ambulance helicopter to a gurney. The third episode occurred in 2006 when moving a heavy patient. At that point he had an MRI scan, which came out okay. The most significant episode occurred in 2008, which is a subject to his workers comp claim. He didn’t work until March 2009. Examination indicated that based upon Mr. Stoy’s history, his 2008 strain combined

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

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

In a summary judgment case, a person with a qualifying disability is the first step, along with the threshold step for plaintiffs in making the prima facie case of discrimination requisite. There are two elements of the plaintiff’s prima facie case (in the absence of direct evidence of discrimination) are that the plaintiff was qualified for the position, with or without accommodations, and that the plaintiff experienced the adverse action as a result of disability . It is also, found that the elements of the prima facie case may be more difficult to dismiss on motions for summary judgment, as they likely involve disputed claims about the facts.