Physical Injuries Of The Home Owner 's Duty

Redding stated that she saw the claimant report to work pain-free without wearing any orthopedic wrist-guards or braces on her right wrist. That same afternoon, an employee informed her that the claimant was inside one of the exam rooms with Mr. Luis Taylor, a Physical Therapist. She was informed the claimant was being treated for a right wrist injury that may have occurred outside of work, as Mr. Taylor conducting a courtesy exam for the claimant since she was an employee. Ms. Redding could not recall whom the employee has who informed her about Mr. Taylor NIL the

Although all accidents and injuries can be unique in their own way, we do utilize a professional, structured process that is designed to protect your rights and attain a positive resolution for you. We assemble your claim alleging the negligence of the responsible party, using police reports, medical observations, photographs, witness accounts, and your own testimonial account. While we do all of the work, you can concentrate on healing and recovering, while anticipating the normalcy returning back to your

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.

The plaintiff must prove that there was negligence from the defendant’s side, which resulted with the injury and they are to be blamed. Negligence is generally a question of fact for the jury, and whether a legal duty exists is something that needs to be solved within the court. In this case, what needs to be determined is whether the City of Elsewhere and/or Officer Ruthless had a duty to Susie Marks regarding to her riding in the camper of the truck, and if so, to then determine the actual cause of the injuries to Susie. The actual cause refers to what really caused the injuries.

Due to the incident of 11/20/11, the plaintiff is alleging she sustained significant injuries as result of the insured operator’s failure to properly park the bus. Since the date of loss and over a three year period, the plaintiff had undergone multiple surgeries involving the neck, back, both knees and left foot. The plaintiff has been diagnosis with multiple herniated disc of the cervical spine requiring a discectomy, multiple herniated disc of the lumbar spine resulting in a spinal fusion, right & left medial meniscus and ACL tears requiring surgical intervention and a metatarsal fusion of the left foot. In addition to the aforementioned injuries, the plaintiff has experienced ongoing episodes of depression and incontinence. .

Witness Villanueva claimed other than an old injury he was aware of when the claimant injured her right hand at the sorting table in 2004, he does not know of any other similar injuries that were similar to her 2004 that may be associated with her current alleged

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

A judge or jury would easily find that the failure to provide Ms. Shark with reasonable disability accommodation was not based on any legal merit and failure to provide the requested accommodation caused Ms. Shark significant damages, including re-aggravation of her injury.

(b) that those personal injuries were caused by the act or omission of some person.”

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.

The plaintiff was treated for a left shoulder injury after the injury after the accident. In August of 2013, Dr. Olvey performed a left shoulder arthroscopy and bicep tenotomy, with subacromial decompression. The plaintiff returned to physical therapy after the shoulder surgery.

As you are aware, we represent Nicholas Nehls in connection with the captioned matter. Nick sustained severe and permanent injuries as a result of the acts and/or omissions of your insureds, Gerald J. Piazzi, Jr., and Zachary Lommatzsch. We have undertaken an investigation of the incident and collected all of the relevant materials. We believe that an analysis of the materials and the facts of this occurrence support a claim for substantial damages against your insureds. We take this opportunity to present this material and to demand the limits of the available insurance coverage, subject to certain conditions. As discussed below, due to the multiple severe and permanent injuries Nick sustained as a result of your insureds’ conduct, his life has been drastically altered and he now suffers from permanent disabilities and a permanent and disfiguring deformity. Further, Nick, who is 24 years old, has experienced significant pain each day since the occurrence and is expected to continue to experience pain on a daily basis for the remainder of

With this, the existence of a duty of care has been proven and is now time to see if it has been breached. It is up to Arthur to show Bill has breached the duty . To do so he will need to prove a reasonable man would have not acted in the same way. The test is objective in a sense that Bill’s skill would not be considered in favour of those of a man who is “presumed to be free both from over-apprehension and from over-confidence” . Bill ignored a warning saying no HGVs should be crossing the bridge, it can be argued that no reasonable person would do this.

Betty said that she sent one of the carers to upstairs office for Care plan of Mrs IA, so she could provide more information to Emergency service.

These 3 individuals were not rookies, they were well trained and had plenty of experience under their belt, but even with all of that they were succumbed to the hazards of this job. Victim #1 was a chauffeur for Rescue 4 and was a 50-year-old male with 27 years of experience. Victim #2 was a 46-year-old male also on Rescue 4 with 14 years of experience. Victim #3 was a chauffeur on Ladder 163 and was a 40-year-old male with 11 years of experience. All 3 of these individuals had completed an extensive list of training courses ranging from: Hazardous Material Operations, Fire Suppression and Control, and Tactical Search Operations, just to name a few. These firefighters perished while performing interior suppression and exterior ventilation operations by a structural collapse that occurred due to an explosion that went off in the cellar of the hardware store. Victim #1 and Victim #3 were removed from the debris fairly quickly after the collapse and were transported to the local hospital and were pronounced dead. The cause of death was said to be blunt force trauma. Victim #2 was recovered from the cellar about 4 hours after the structural collapse and was pronounced dead on the scene. The cause of death was said to be asphyxia due to smoke inhalation.