We represent the employer, Rensselaer County and its third-party administrator Benetech, Inc., in the above reference matter. Please accept this letter as an appeal to the determination made by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge at a hearing held on 04/27/2017 and memorialize in Notice of Decision filed on 05/02/2017. The self-insured employer respectfully objects and appeals that portion of the decision which found the claimant to have a 45% loss of wage-earning capacity. It is respectfully submitted given the undisputed medical severity of 3-B plus the many mitigating factors in this case, there was error for the Judge to find 45% loss of wage-earning capacity. It is submitted the record supports a finding the claimant has a 37.5% loss of wage-earning capacity. BACKGROUND …show more content…
The claimant’s date of birth is 10/01/1962 and he is presently 54 years of age. The claimant completed high school and graduated with a high school diploma. In addition he spent three (3) years in the military. The claimant has a work history of eighteen (18) years as a corrections officer. Prior to that he worked as a dispatcher for the North Greenbush Police Department and prior to that he was an flower deliveryman. The claimant was inured while working as a corrections officer and he is now placed on medical restrictions to avoid inmate contact. He has sufficient skills to allow him to work unrestricted duty at full pay in excess of his average weekly wage. He is not presently receiving any awards for reduced earnings and he is working full-time. In his testimony on 04/27/2017, the claimant indicated he is able to use a computer at home, he surfs the web and uses the computer to play fantasy baseball. The claimant testified, although he is on restricted duty, he is able to lift thirty (30) to fifty (50)
Recommendations: It is recommended that our law office regretfully deny service to Ms. Carry based upon the precedent in Kentucky. Based upon the analysis the issue, it is apparent that Ms. Carry would not receive a promising conclusion to her situation. Due to the facts involved and the cases discussed (which are somewhat on point) Ms. Carry does not make a claim in which relief can be granted.
This case comprises the plaintiffs, who file a lawsuit against the defendants for denying them overtime pay, which are an infraction of extra hour’s provisions and exemptions under the Fair Labor Standard Act. These non-exempted employees worked 59.33 hours per week with 19.33 additional hours being overtime hours. Moreover, the plaintiffs unpaid hours combined totaled 9,483 in a permissible retro. The claimant’s claim was asserted and bestowed $12, 207,880.84 plus attorney’s fees of, $119.843.75.
The claimant sustained injuries soft tissue in nature. She was not required to have any surgeries or miss significant time from work; therefore, her injuries did not pierce New York’s Serious Injury Threshold. Claimant’s PIP claim was resolved in 2015 in the amount of $18,487.58 I have reached a tentative agreement in the amount of $21,000 for Claimant’s
In Domeny v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo 2010-9), the taxpayer suffered from Multiple Sclerosis and the taxpayer’s symptoms “flared up” due to a stressful work environment after she reported a co-worker for embezzlement. When the taxpayer took a leave of absence as insisted by her physician, she was terminated. As a result of a lawsuit, the taxpayer received, among other payments, $16,933 which was listed on a Form 1099-MISC as nonemployee compensation. The court ruled that because the taxpayer’s work environment did cause the increase in her symptoms and that the $16,933 portion of her settlement was intended as compensation of her physical injuries, that amount was excludable from her gross income under
The plaintiff in this action, Mr. Bell, is requesting from the Commission, to award compensation for his injury under the Worker’s Compensation Act. Mr. Bell, will be referred to as Bell, filed a workers’ compensation claim against defendant, Safe Place Children’s Home, which will be referred to as the Safe Place. Bell subsequently submitted a claim to the Safe Place human resources department and was denied. Bell’s injury is compensable because Safe Place mandated Bell’s physical presence and participation in a football game at an annual picnic which benefited Safe Place by socializing, boosting morale, and team building. An injury arises out of employment when the employee is expressly mandated at the recreational and social event and the
The claimant is a female (DOB 12/21/1977) who works as a Technical Customer Service Support Tier II Advisor who is claiming disability from 10/15/2017 onwards. The physical requirements of her job include multitasking; listening and talking to the customer, while typing to research issues, and to review and update the customer account information; and continuously using keyboard and mouse.
Was the plaintiff a victim of job discrimination, which infringes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, also identified as the Fair Employment Practices Act? Therefore, in regards to this case, before a presiding can be delivered, there are a number of questions that must be answered.
This statement of position letter represents the position of Ace Glass Company (ACE), the respondent in the above listed case. Jim Bowersmithes (“claimant”), asserts that ACE terminated his employment (1) Based on his age; (2) Treated unequally compared to women. These charges are without merit, lack evidence to support his allegations of discrimination in any form and should be dismissed since (1) The claimant, has missed a total of 16 workdays for various reasons, including one no show/no call. (2) The claimant has missed three mandatory safety meetings during this time; (3) The claimant’s personnel file contains two written reprimands about his attendance, including failure to attend three mandatory safety meetings, the latest one states
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. 301 U.S. 1; 57 S. Ct. 615; 81 L. Ed. 893; 1937 U.S.
State Farm had been accused for breach of contract by its policy holder, Jennifer Mangiamelle on 14 December at Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny as Jennifer did not received the policy proceeds left by her late husband. The plaintiff stated that the firm had wrongly filed a claim for life insurance left by her husband Dwayne Mangiamelle. Jennifer reveals that she was the beneficiary of the policy of her late husband.
Insurance companies should provide the option for a member to claim an unemployed senior relative as an insurance dependent.
Daily, the claimant gets up, gets dressed, feeds and walks his dog. He mostly just stays at home. He will spend time with the friend that he lives with. He will also watch television and clean. He says that he does not get hungry much and that he drinks shakes in order to keep his blood sugar stable. He says that he does not socialize often. He socializes daily, with the friend that he lives with. He socializes with his mother every two weeks. He sees his daughters once per week. He says that when he is socializing with these people, they talk. The claimant is responsible for the household cleaning, cooking and shopping. He affirms that he is capable of doing these tasks.
The Responsibility for Accident case is about an argument between an employee, called John Schmidt, and his employer. The dispute occurred when John seriously injured his hand when operating a machine in the production shop and neither John nor the company
Provide date of sustaining occupational disease/injury in the requested format and continue by providing name of employer on the next line. Furnish address of the employer followed by city, state, and zip code in spaces allocated for the same. Provide phone number of the employer in the next blank space.
During the court, P4P issued the Decision Letter (No.660/48/17-10/IX/PHK/4-1999) that the defendant was not allowed to dismiss their employees. The reason was because there was not agreement between the defendant and the 153 employees. The defendant refused that Decision Letter because that would cause the defendant should give the job to the employees back and should pay their wage.