I attended a Board ordered deposition of Dr. Miriam Kanter in the above-referenced matter on 08/24/17. The claimant was represented by attorney Tim Welch. As you know, this case is established for injuries to the neck and right shoulder with an average weekly wage of $1,614.34. We are presently litigating the issue of permanency. Your consultant, Dr. Cally, examined and found the claimant to have a permanency rating of 3-B. Dr. Kantor completed a C-4.3 on 05/27/17 and found the claimant to have a permanency rating of “E”. We previously have deposed Dr. Cally and medical testimony will be complete with the testimony of Dr. Kantor. This case is scheduled to come back on calendar on 10/19/17 for the testimony of the claimant on loss of …show more content…
I made it clear to the doctor that I was not involved in the criminal prosecution of this matter and I was not accusing her of any wrong doing. I was simply attempting to elicit facts which would allow us to inform our position with regard to her testimony and her reports. Obviously, the potential for criminal investigation could touch on the doctors credibility if she were personally involved in the fraudulent billing. I think we could argue that if the doctor was guilt of such activities, it would go to her credibility and the weight that should be given to her opinions. I also noticed that there were only two (2) reports from Dr. Kantor in the electronic case folder. One was from 04/20/17 and then her C-4.3 on 05/27/17. On direct examination the doctor testified that she had seen the claimant on 02/11/16. She said she extended some physical therapy at that time. I asked the doctor about that on cross-examination and I told her that report did not appear in the electronic case folder. She said she would fax it to me and I gave her my fax number. When she saw the claimant on 04/20/17, she simply encouraged the claimant to continue with the home exercise program. Her only other involvement in the case was to complete a C-27 and a permanency evaluation. I asked these questions because the Case Law establishes that if a doctor is examining solely for the purposes of providing a opinion on permanency or causal relationship
Repyneck recalls in 2011 she was going through a divorce from her husband Michael Ziegler. Repyneck was having financial problem and she was advised to seek a bankruptcy lawyer. Repyneck was scheduled for a hearing in Hellertown on Wednesday and her divorce attorney recommended David Tidd from Hellertown. She called Tidd, she thought it was either Sunday or Monday, and he told her to bring a payment to retain him to his office on Tuesday and he would make the hearing on Wednesday go away. After she went to his office, Tidd told her she wouldn’t have to appear in court on Wednesday, that he would take care of it.
Is this a case when the physician should be called to the telephone because of the threat of an impending suit?
This correspondence shall confirm that the undersigned appeared at applicant’s attorney’s office in Stockton, California on April 18, 2017, to complete the applicant’s deposition. The handling attorney, Mr. Rod McClelland, was unable to attend the applicant’s deposition due to an unavoidable calendar conflict. This file will be returned to Mr. McClellan for further defense handling.
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
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
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
Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Robert Higgins and Teresa Higgins (the “Higginses”) and Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Richard Hargrove and Kathleen Hargrove (the “Hargroves”), by their respective undersigned counsel, hereby submit this Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.
Your affiant interviewed C1’s attending doctor. IT reported that IT visually examined C1’s injuries. The injuries were appeared to be minor. IT further reported that C1 was under influence of alcohol and pending other medical testing report.
See Electcrostim Med. Servs., Inc. v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 962 F. Supp. 2d 887, 898-99 (S.D. Tex. 2013) (granting motion to dismiss); Encompass Office Solutions, Inc. v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., No. 3:11-cv-02487-L, 2012 WL 3030376, *8-*9 (N.D. Tex. July 25, 2012) (denying motion to dismiss); Team Healthcare/Diagnostic Corp. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Tex., No. 3:10-cv-1441-BH, 2012 WL 1617087, *6 (N.D. Tex. May 7, 2012) (denying motion to dismiss); Mid-Town Surgical Ctr., LLP v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tex., No. H-11-2086 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2012) (granting motion to dismiss); DAC Surgical Partners, P.A. v. United Healthcare Servs., Inc., No. H-11-1355, 2011 WL 3841946, *6 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2011) (denying motion to dismiss);
A civil suit is commonly derived from a private party or individual, who alleges damages from duty of care. Once a civil case begins, it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove, with evidence, duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. Conversely, the defendant must prove their affirmative defense against documented allegations. The Oliver versus Brock case proves the importance of supporting evidence as opposed to hearsay statements, to prove the truth of the matter. In the Oliver versus Brock case, Cathy (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Bryan Whitfield Memorial Hospital of Demopolis and the treating physicians Dr. F.S. Whitfield, Dr. Paul Ketcham and Dr. E.C. Brock (Defendant) for negligence of care. Analyzing the facts in
COME NOW, PLAINTIFF, by and through her attorney of record, Corey Lightner, Esq.. of YOUNG’S LAW FIRM, and hereby files their Motion for Summary Judgment. The rule governing this matter is Rule 1.510(c) of
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.
On December 24, 2015, I forwarded this claim to law department because I was unaware that the claims should be going to Stephanie Zimberg.
A visit note from Dr. Carico, dated 06/20/2017, indicated that the claimant continued to have