Armstrong Olives, Inc.: Case Study

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 11/4/16, I, Account Manager Enmanuel Cabrera, was notified via email by Shift Supervisor Massiel Perez that Security Officer Bailey Forte no called no showed. S/O Forte is usually off on Fridays, but was scheduled in advance, 0200-0600, to cover the open post. S/S Perez made several attempts to call the officers from 1st shift to cover the open post, but was unsuccessful to get someone to come in. Also on 11/3, during the afternoon parking lot detail AVP1 was 1 flagger short, all vital positions where filled with the exception of the parking lot supervisor/rover. As well as on 11/4, morning parking lot detail was short 1 flagger. Daniel Canela no call no show for the AM parking lot detail. All vital positions in the parking lot were filled for the exception of the supervisor/rover position.

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.

Almanza further claimed she nor her administrative staff of office employees were informed by the claimant or from the claimant’s two Supervisors, Mr. Jose Maldonado, and his brother who is deceased, Mr. Estevan Maldonado that the claimant had any internal complaints or issues. She said the claimant’s work performance was never an issue and that there was no anticipation of any pending layoffs or workplace harassment issues for any related industrial stressors. She said both brothers supervised the claimant and from her knowledge, she never received any incident reports or complaints from either Supervisors that suggested the claimant may have suffered from a slip or fall at his job where he may have injured his head or back.

The reporting party (RP) stated on 6/8/16 client Jacqueline Cazarez and her mother (a name not provided) met at the office. The client's mother discussed the reason she no longer wanted her daughter to attend the day program. The mother disclosed that strange things were happening to her daughter. According to the mother, last week the client arrived home with a scrape on her knee. On 6/7/16 the client arrived home with big bruises under her right arm and right leg. The bruises were observed by the RP. The mother is not happy with the treatment her daughter is receiving at the day program. Subsequently the mother is aware that her daughter has behavior issues and agrees that she is not perfect. The mother disclosed that the transportation driver

Ms. Yu claimed there were no reports made to her about any other industrial-related injuries or non-work related injuries that the claimant reported to the Insured. She said the Claimant never reported a slip or fall to either the Human Resources Department or her Supervisor, Ms. Larios.

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.

Mr. Cintron said the claimant was a full-time employee. Mr. Cintron said he did not have the claimant’s exact date of hire and did not know if the claimant had concurrent employment or outside work aside from his full-time employment with the insured.

The claimant had stated before she started at Yamaha Motor Inc. she did not report her injuries to the Human Resources Department or her supervisor when hired on 9-5-12. She stated if she did, it might have compromised her chances in gaining employment with theYamaha Motors Corporation

The parties in this case include Bitty Baker the owner of Biddy’s Tea House and Crossantarie. The other party is an employee Natalie Attired. The action that is bringing these parties to court is Natalie got a full-sleeve tattoo and Biddy Baker wanted her to remove the tattoo or she would be fired since the tattoo is visible with the uniform and the older clientele would be disgusted by it. Natalie Attired is seeking unemployment compensation benefits. Natalie began working at Biddy’s in May 2009 as a waitress. Biddy’s evaluates employee’s performances every three months. Natalie has four evaluations. These evaluations show Natalie continuing to improve in her performance. Natalie was never written up for performance issues. There is no employee handbook or written policy about employee conduct or appearance. In June 2010 Natalie got a full-sleeve tattoo that covered her entire right arm from her shoulder to her elbow. The tattoo was partially covered by her uniform although lower part of the tattoo was visible when Natalie wore the short sleeve uniform. Biddy Baker was upset about the tattoo and asked Natalie to remove the tattoo or she would be fired. Natalie did not remove the tattoo and worked the rest of the week and was given a termination notice on Friday. Natalie filed for unemployment compensation July 2010. The claim was denied by the New Mexico Employment Security Board, because they stated that Natalie was fired

1. Gregory Rhodes: witness has had direct placement and access to complainant situation as whole. Including but not limited to hardships suffered by the complainant due to agency action. Has observed the agency actions regarding personnel movements and can attest to the unfair treatment of the complainant. Witness testimony should take approximately 20

| 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.

The workers’ compensation claim detailed the circumstances surrounding an injury that he suffered while at work. He confessed that while working on the job site he sustained severe burns to his lower body. His duties on this day included that he make some repairs to a leaky fuel line. During this process fuel spilled onto his pants. Additionally while making repairs pieces of steel become caught on his pants. Lastly as Mr. Martinez attempted to use a torch to cut free pipe a spark ignited the fuel on his pants. This resulted in burns to his lower body. This injury resulted in him to miss having to miss a considerable amount time from work. He filed a workers compensation to replace part of his lost wages. The suit accused the defendants of failing to maintain a safe work site for its subcontractors and in failing to provide personal protective clothing, personal protective equipment, and firefighting equipment.

Complainant contends that in or around September 2011, then-Governor Deval Patrick appointed Richard Davey (Secretary Davey) as Secretary of Respondent. Complainant alleges that in or around September 2011, Secretary Davey informed Complainant that he (Secretary Davey) wanted to make changes in personnel and “shake the place up.” Complainant

Below is the summary of chronology of events/incidents that occurred to resolve the dispute through exchange of requested information between myself and Woolworths on my personnel Injury. The outcome was that Woolworths refused to offer any compensation for its negligence and admits its liability for my personnel injury. I am writing this letter to seek ACAT assistance to consider my case and resolve the dispute and getting proper compensation for my personnel injury.