Sample Case Study In Counselling

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

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.

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

15. The Plaintiff was considered disabled, before the said injury and is claiming Disability abuse and Neglect with unreasonable

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 evidence in file supports a more restrictive RFC. The claimant could not be expected to lift 50 lbs. occasionally and 25 lbs frequently on a sustained basis. At most, he could lift up to 20 lbs. occasionally and 10 lbs frequently and would be limited to occasional posturals; he should avoid ladders, dangerous machinery, and unprotected heights.

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.

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

The past loss of normal life would be comparable to the plaintiff in the referenced trial since both Kenneth and the above-referenced plaintiff have been experienced the alleged resulting disability for approximately the same period of time. We estimate that the future loss of normal life would be in the range of $200,000 to $400,000 due to Kenneth being older. We believe that the award for increased risk of future harm would also be similar to the case we are

On 4/4/17 I met Mr. Kobetic at the office of Dr. O’Hara Neurosurgeon. Mr. Kobetic reports he has no back pain. He is allowed to remove the back brace for sleeping and reports his left side muscles are tender when he is lying in bed. X-rays were taken before the appointment today. Mr. Kobetic was examined by PA Ms. Masaud then Dr. O’Hara came in. Examination showed good strength, sensation and strength. The x-rays showed the fracture has healed. Mr. Kobetic may now remove the back brace. He is to increase his activity as tolerated. Mr. Kobetic will follow up with the office only if needed. Mr. Kobetic will be making the stress test appointment with the cardiologist to determine if he had a cardiac issue that caused the auto accident. Mr. Kobetic reports he has no recollection of the accident and what caused it. Once the test is complete and he has a follow up appointment he will let me know. Mr. Kobetic returns to work today.

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

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.

Because Dr. Fichtel has not treated the Plaintiff in seven years, he is not in a position to give an opinion as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries. Prior to him giving an opinion as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s cervical spine injuries, he would have to examine her, which he has not.

Dr. Adams reviewed the MRI films. The family found a man who makes custom cervical collars in Florida and they asked for a order so they could try and have one made. Dr. Adams said he is more concerned about the Kyphosis. He asked if the collar had been removed. Mr. Messing said he thought the collar could be removed, Ms. Messing said it has not been removed. Dr. Adams said a custom collar is not the solution, he feels she needs a Halo. He said he doesn’t do those any longer. He recommends Henry Ford, Beaumont or the U of M hospital. He ordered a new ct scan to be done. While were in the exam room Mr. Messing called his daughter a nurse practioner and Dr. Adams spoke with her. She will speak with the neurosurgery department at her hospital and find the appropriate doctor. I spoke with Gail after the appointment as she had requested and provided her with an update. Gail had requested an open claim letter so she could make arrangements for her mother to see her neurologist and her PCP but needs a open claim letter. The letter was obtained and faxed to Dr. Kala

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