Workers Compensation Case Study

There are many employment laws out there but ill discuss about three of them and what are the consequences if the company did not comply. The employment laws I will discuss are the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964, Americans with Disabilities Act 1990, and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. My next topic would be how an organization might structure their policies, practices and culture to ensure compliance.

Ms. Juanita Machado is a Line Assembly Technician. She was employed with the insured approximately for seven months. Within the seven months, she has been with the company; she had known of the claimant, Mr. Donald Arauz after he had been hired early on last year in 2016 when he was hired to the same position that she currently holds.

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.

The undersigned attended the Lien Conference held at the Fresno Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board on May 11, 2017. The undersigned appeared on behalf of Mr. Rod McClelland. Mr. McClelland had an unavoidable calendar conflict on the day of the hearing. If you have any questions regarding this Lien Conference, please do not hesitate to contact either myself or Mr. McClelland.

The two witnesses say the claimant at no time demonstrated, exhibited, reported, or complained about any injuries which he has made with his specific and continuous trauma claims. Witness Gustavo said he was taken back when he received legal documentation from the claimant’s attorneys for a workers’ comp claim injuries, which he say’s never occurred.

In referring to the allegations of the particular claim and to the CT claim of injuries which Mr. Arzuz has alleged within his post-termination claim, she argued that Mr. Arzuz had never reported or complained about the underlying medical conditions which he is complaining about to the body-parts which were affected by his claim. For the short amount of time he has been employed with her company, she said Mr. Arzuz’s sedentary position which requires very little physical activities to perform the job is not fast-paced or repetitive since the physical actions with the use of hands and fingers to assemble light pieces of motherboards require very little repetitious movements. After going through Mr. Arzuz’s personnel file, she found he never made a

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

Ms. Almanza claimed she researched and provided the claimant’s entire personnel file for this investigation and stated she was not aware of any industrial-related injuries associated with the claimants said injuries, by noting that no treating physicians ever provided any causation or the implied injuries. She provided proof with the claimant’s personnel file taken into as evidence by stating there was no medical evidence, doctors note or request of modified work duties to suggest any medical

Ms. Yu claimed during her interview that she had no information to give as to the claimant’s evaluation, attendance and her past employment history. Furthermore, she had no information about the claimant’s medical history, injuries at previous employers, or any other work related injuries with this employer.

Employer offers management consulting and outsourcing of services for numerous private companies and federal agencies throughout the country. Claimant was originally hired on 4/3/12 as a Human Performance Practitioner in the state of Virginia. (Exhibit 1: Offer Letter) The contract for hire was not entered into in the District of Columbia but rather the Employer’s principal place of business located at 1525 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA. Moreover, on 4/3/12 the Claimant lived in Great Falls, VA and on the date of the subject accident, 5/6/16, Claimant lived at her current residence in Front Royal, VA. On 5/6/16 Claimant was working on a project for Employer’s client, “Leidos” to support the U.S. Department of Defense. The Claimant was assigned

| In reference to the employee’s claim, I appreciate the vote of confidence instilled in me by allowing me to do the research on the case. It gave me the opportunity to familiarize myself with the situation, refresh on the laws, understand our current policies and in addition, it gave me the opportunity to think about strategies to mitigate this type of risk in the future. Below are my findings.

On Thursday, November 9, 2017m at 10:45 a.m., the Investigator traveled to conduct an employer level AOE/COE investigation at the Insureds business; El Wester Lawn Mower Shop, located at 5663 York Blvd., Highland Park CA 90042-2550. We received two separate r/s’s from Mr. Fernando Rodriguez and Mrs. Cinthia Rodriguez. They confirmed the claimant’s full-time employment at their company as Certified Mechanic as of December 2012. They established that their company performs minor tune-ups on mini-bikes, mopeds, motorized bicycles that they charge $50.00; coupled with the repairs that they regularly perform on the lawn mower and other motorized gardening equipment. Mr. Rodriguez alleges on June 22, 2017, at 11:30 a.m., the claimant got through

Hemmerling injury to the workers' compensation prosecution staff. Happy argued that Hemmerling was an independent contractor and insurance coverage.

Oregon Workers’ Compensation language seems clear that a worker may elect to file a claim verses must file a claim. As an employer, we have an obligation to offer America the opportunity to file a claim (including offering her the Form 801). However, she can opt not to file. If her decision is to opt not to file, could you please ask her to simply write, then sign her name, on the Form 801 that she’s electing not to file? If she intends to file a claim, she needs to complete the Form 801 as-soon-as-possible as we are past the submission window.

The scenario is a horrendous string of coincidences that resulted in a tragedy. However, every party carries some responsibility for the eventual double amputation. This paper examines each of the parties, their possible liability and how that is covered by negligence law.