FIDM Hearing Case Study

We have a judgment against the borrower in the amount of $23,402. Dan Marchese and Elyse Marchese are the two guarantors, and are in process of a divorce. The judgment (plus post judgment interest) is expected to be satisfied from the closing of house by the end of October, 2015.

SC received a telephone call on 10/16/2015 stared 9:34 and end at 9:41 am from Tricia Crooks at Liberty Resources Home Choices (LRHC) Community Outreach and Enrollment Leader. Stating that she spoke Pa and he wants to resume his service order with LRHC for PAS service. SC informed SC that this information will first need to verify with Pa. SC expressed concerns about LRHC being able to fulfill service since they had the case unstaffed for over two weeks (09/25/15-10/15/2015). Tricia apologized on behalf of LRHC, and stated that they have someone assigned and is ready to go all is needed is the resumed service order ASAP. SC again explained to Tricia that Pa has to confirm this besides Pa was very adamant about switching provider because the

This check represents full satisfaction of our lien and the claimant’s third-party action. As you know, we agreed to accept $30,000.00 in satisfaction of our lien. We reserved our rights to offset against future payments of compensation.

On October 22, 2014, the FIDM lien was requested in accordance with the Code of Alabama 1975 30-3, 30-3-197 and 30-3-198. On October 23, 2014, the Secretary of State acknowledged the lien and the levy was requested. On the same day, the Notice of Levy was sent to the financial institution. On October 27, 2014, the levy package was generated for the NCP. On December 9, 2014, the Lien Unit received a notice from the Navy Federal Credit Union that account numbers 3019677362, 3044625709, 7034239553, and 3044624900; the accounts have zero funds for payment. The levy was released; it was re-added due to the account on the FIDM screen; not listed on notice having funds. On that same day, the FIDM levy was released on the account #530116705. Again, on that day, the FIDM levy was requested and the notice was sent to the financial institution. On December 11, 2014, the FIDM Levy package was produced. On February 25, 2015, the NCP contacted the Lien Unit and stated that he had sent a statement of benefits letter from social security about two weeks ago. The Lien Unit told him that they had not received the information and requested the NCP to send the information and the Request for a Review Form via fax to expedite the process. On March 20, 2015, the Lien Unit contacted the NCP; he stated he mailed the statement from social security about a month ago and wanted confirmation that it was received. The NCP was advised that no documents had been received. Again, the Lien Unit requested the NCP to fax in the documents. On March 25, 2015, through contact of voice mail, the Lien Unit requested the NCP’s last three months bank statements on the account affected by the lien or where the social security benefits are deposited. Later that day, the Lien Unit informed the NCP that the Social Security Administration

Madison County DHR revealed that the only testimony they have is the spreadsheet. The representative stated that credit needed to be given to the NCP for those payments that he made without DHR’s knowledge. She stated DHR has no issue in adjusting the payments with

In their cross-appeal, (Case A96A0616), plaintiffs challenged the trial court’s denial of their motion for pre-judgement interest. Plaintiffs rely on Grisset v. Wilson, 181 Ga. App. 727,728 (1) (353 S.E.2d 621) (1987), in which it held that a single notice of demand can cover multiple claims, and the notice covered the spouse’s consortium claim as well as the injured plaintiff’s personal injury claim. In reviewing the full demand letter, it “leads us to conclude that the demand letter encompassed only Jeffrey’s claim and the trial court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for pre-judgement

Could you please assist me? My associate was reviewing appeal # APP-2018599 that was completed by Priscilla Wilkerson. She notice that all the claims checks were suppressed when they were not advised in the SOW to processed this way. In order for all 18 claims to be reprocessed, Danielle has been advised to redo the SOW. Since, this was not her error, I think that these claims need to be reprocessed again correctly by Priscilla or another claim analyst. Could you please review and advise? Attached is communication from Danielle trying to get assistance from Priscilla regarding the mistake that was made and Kishma advising of next steps.

Petitioner’s counsel raised the issue of whether BISD improperly included legal counsel in ARD meetings in her May 26, 2015 Motion. BISD filed a written response and exhibits contesting the issue and the question of whether BISD improperly included legal counsel in ARD meetings was determined by Hearing Officer Kilgore via June 2, 2015 Order (“Order 8”) . Therefore, whether the District improperly included legal counsel in the

The marriage between the two parties involved (Richard S. Dougall and Myrna R. Dougall) was dissolved in 2008 with the dissolution decree ordering Richard to pay Myrna $750 per month in spousal maintenance. Each of the two parties was also awarded one half interest in two parcels of property. Richard was ordered by the court to obtain appraisals and pay a fair share of the equity (as designated by the court’s property division assessment) to Myrna. In 2011, the court entered two judgments against Richard for failing to comply with obligations set down in the court order. A $5,000 judgment represented Myrna’s interest in one of the properties. The second judgment for $4,745 represented spousal maintenance arrearages. The court also reduced Richard’s spousal maintenance obligation to $500 per month effective August 2011.

In this case, the Department’s Representative testified to mailing the Appellant a manual notice on June 3, 2016 advising that the household’s application for cash assistance was being denied due to failure to meet residency requirements. On August 9, 2016, The Appellant called the Department to make an oral appeal. The Appellant’s appeal was filed August 10, 2016, sixty-eight (68) days after the denial. Since the appeal was

The anomalous claim (DIB) filed on 08/03/2017. We obtained the necessary document form the NH on 09/15/17 and completed the subsequent requirements on 10/12/17. Please let me know

I attended a hearing on your behalf in the above matter before Judge Burke in Hudson, New York, on 05/17/2017. The claimant was present and represented by attorney Ed DeLauter. Your insured, Robert George, was present to give testimony.

6 and 7 in Beaumont I, the Hearing Officer did not specify a time line for BISD’s completion of any assessments or compensatory services.” (emphasis added) Petitioner’s statement support the District’s position that the assessments were orders as relief in the Beaumont I final decision and order. The ordered assessments in the areas of ABLLS, FBA, and FIEs were relief ordered by the Hearing Officer as Orders 6 and 7. Therefore, an allegation that the District was delayed in providing the assessments is on its face an allegation that the District failed to comply with Orders 6 and 7 in Beaumont

As a long term employee, I have seen many changes at SVMC, both good and bad. Understanding that the current state of healthcare is extremely complex and volatile; the past few months have been a very difficult time for the organization and the associates. Unfortunately, senior leadership contributed to the organizations anxiety level by delivering mixed messages regarding SVMC potential divesture from Ascension. At the first town hall meetings, Mr. Caponi was clear that SVMC was breaking away from Ascension, and two weeks later the message changed. There has been a considerable amount effort and “damage control” by senior leadership to dispel that there is no plan to leave Ascension or look for opportunities with other healthcare organization.

Per the financial reconciliation findings, Fiscal resumed Support obligation effective 7/11/13, as the case was suspended on 5/19/11 until after the NCP is to be released from incarceration. NCP was released from incarceration on 8/25/12. Fiscal adjusted the balance of CA account to $4871. 57 and the PA account balance to $8553. 00. Total arrearage due as of today is $13424. 87. Fiscal forward financial reconciliation to worker A.