Personal Narrative: Hearing Request

There have been many instances where I have collaborated in this course, one being peer reviews. As I shared my work with others, I started to notice trends that provided insight on how I analyzed works. I realized that I was already looking for patterns in works and suspending judgment, which were skills I had learned in my previous courses. However, there were steps of the analytical process that I needed to strengthen. These steps included pulling out significant parts and making the implicit explicit. Growing up, I have always struggled with absorbing information when reading, and this semester proved to me that that this hindrance would not magically disappear. When reading sources, I struggled to find main ideas or quotable instances,

The Commission on the date of April 8, 2011 announced to the Tribunal and the alleged parties that is would not be involved in the hearing directly. They enclosed documentation and forwarded it to both parties concerning the information about legal council should they have any questions. A mediation date was set shortly after on April 19, 2011. At this point the Tribunal uses a courier service to contact all parties involved. This requires the recipient to sign for the documents being delivered. This presented an issue for the complainant from the beginning. The courier has history saved to record when a delivery is attempted and is either successful or unsuccessful. Throughout the entirety of this case, Labelle was unable to be contacted on over 5 attempts by the courier service.

My office has completed the necessary steps to address the anomalous claim. My office is awaiting a response from your office to proceed with her request for a new claim.

Directly after receiving the ruling from the Tier III hearing Mr. Hubbard wrote an appeals letter and wrote another letter to O.R.C. Allen. In his appeal he stated that he was never made aware of the hearing. In his letter to O.R.C. Allen he alleges having evidence that O.R.C. Allen had written him, had consented to the mail he was sending, and that he could not wait to question her at the next hearing that would result due to his appeal.

It is unclear if Plaintiff will be available to testify in her case. As stated in previous correspondence, it appears Plaintiff no longer has an interest in pursuing her case due to her failure to respond to our $12,000 offer and her relocation out of the state. Her previous counsel reported that she intended to get new counsel, but we have not received a Motion to Withdraw from the Bowers Law Group or any correspondence from a new attorney.

I strongly recommended her to stay in contact with the Hearing Rep. I told her that that is the process and that the Hearing Rep is following it. The Hearing Rep will provide all the information to the Administrative Judge and it is the administrative judge that will ultimately make the decision. She will get a copy of the same information as well.

I received your October 5, 2017 letter today. This is not a valid objection to the deposition. Regardless of the outcome on the petition to amend, we will not dismiss the current petition. We will file the 850 petition and ask the court to stay this petition pending conclusion of the 850. Accordingly, there is a petition and response filed.

This letter is to inform you that our department will not attend Megan Haertel’s, appeal number 16-032628, telephone hearing scheduled for 12/12/16. We do not wish to protest her claim.

Seltzer’s testimony revealed that prior to being on welfare earlier years; she had no knowledge that her benefits had ever been reduced. Ms. Seltzer stated in the past her benefits always just been cutoff, but this time when she missed her appointment, she was trying to put her children on the bus. She stated it was not that she was trying not to cooperate, she had several things going on, but the decision is up to DHR. She stated that she is not objecting to what is going on; she understands that you cannot miss two appointments. She stated she asked for the hearing because she had rather receive a decrease in benefits; the benefits are for her

By letter dated December 15, 2015, Petitioner requested for a postponement of the Representation hearing, currently scheduled for Friday, December 18 at 10:00 am. I spoke with the Employer’s counsel, Robert Morsilli, and he does not object to the postponement.

Please be advised, the Union has decided not to file suit in Superior Court to enforce the arbitrator’s subpoena against Blue Cross and requests that the hearing record be closed and briefing deadlines issued. Given the length of the hearing, the Union requests 45 days for briefing.

She was advised about the appeal process, she said that she had already sent a certified letter to appeal the disposition.

Please confirm. I don’t want to assume what the analyst mean by “Please provide exception memo to override denial.” Claim#132587959900 will apply additional money when refreshed. However, COB/OHI is preventing the money from paying out. But, Yolanda thinks that this note maybe the result of an untrained representative working Iowa appeals. An CLIA will look in the system like the screen shoot below. Could you please advise why the representative was not able to reprocess the appeal?

Crabtree Amusements wishes to drop the April 7, 2016 hearing on its Motion for Summary Judgment. Our venue requires me to provide a letter with all counsel agreement to same. I would appreciate your signing below and returning this agreement to me so that I can provide it to the Court so that the hearing is removed from the Court’s April 7, 2016

Could you please advise? Appeal# 1090436 for claim# 125117839600 was worked by you on 05/19/2015. You upheld the decision. However, sent out a letter to the provider advising that it had been overturned. We need to know which decision was given on the appeal? If it’s different then the letter that was sent to the provider, another letter needs to be sent to the provider with the correct decision. If the letter is correct them the claims need to be reprocess for payment.