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.
As you know, this is a controverted claim which we are defending on the grounds the claimant is not an employee but rather an independent contractor. At the last hearing we took the testimony of the claimant. The claimant does not speak English and required a Spanish interpreter. The testimony was quite lengthy and we used up the entire time allowance. The Judge terminated the testimony before we were able to completed the claimant’s testimony or the testimony of Mr. George. The minutes of that testimony have been
…show more content…
George.
I had spoken to Mr. George on at least three (3) occasions to review the facts and circumstances of this case and to prepare him for his testimony. I spoke to him for at least an hour the day before this hearing, reviewing the outstanding issues and answering questions that he had regarding the case.
At this hearing I had Mr. George testify he operates Robert George Design Group, LTD. That he knows the claimant and has known him since around 2007. He describes his work as doing landscaping, outdoor masonry and patio work. He testified he has a subcontractor relationship with the claimant. He said the claimant’s expertise were in such things as roofing, sheet rocking, painting and equipment maintenance.
Mr. George testified the claimant would work for him a daily rate.
Mr. George first met the claimant in 2007 when the claimant was doing some work for him at his house. The claimant asked if he could do work for him and Mr. George told the claimant he would need to have insurance and a tax ID#. The claimant obtained a tax ID# and Mr. George helped him obtain a policy of liability insurance. A certification of insurance has previously been
This file will now be returned to Mr. McClelland for further defense handling. If you have any questions regarding this hearing report or any other issues, please do not hesitate to contact either myself or Mr. McClelland. It was a pleasure to handle this file on your behalf on a one-time
McClellan called the claimant into the front office regarding the claimant’s past work performance and the formal written reprimands she had received in the past. Ms. McClellan alleged that the company’s objective was to call in the claimant in answering her past work performance, and to offer the claimant a “more suitable positon to accommodate the claimant’s slow pace of work.”
Interrogatory No. 6: Identify and describe in all possible detail the legal and factual basis for your
I attended a hearing on your behalf in the above-referenced matter before Judge Burke in Hudson, New York, on 05/17/2017. The claimant was present by phone and was represented by attorney Bob King. Mr. Rumsey was present from the Special Funds 15-8 Unit.
On Wednesday, 12/16/15 we travelled to meet and interview Witnesses Sylvia Yu, HR Manager and Selina Larios at THE HAT restaurant to get facts about the Workers ' Compensation case involving Claimant Dian Guzman.
I am writing in response to Jonathan Friedman’s inquiry to the Illinois Department of Insurance dated June 27, 2016. In the inquiry, Mr. Friedman expressed concerns over the adjustment of claim number 4079503H4820X.
COMES NOW, Defendant the State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Farm”), by and through Mark J. Stiller, Esq., Bryant S. Green, Esq., and Niles, Barton & Wilmer, LLP, and hereby files this Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Respond to Discovery pursuant to Md. Rule 3-421(h), and in support thereof, states as follows:
Allied Indemnity of New York, the appellee, respectfully suggests that oral argument would be of little benefit. The dispositive issue has been
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
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.
for the property damage of her vehicle which was damaged by your driver, Marcin M. Wencel
CIC has never proved any failure or submitted any complaints against Mr. Hocker; meanwhile, Mr. Hocker has filed complaints against CIC’s employees, agent and workers for various contractual violations. CIC’s claim file clearly indicated Mr. Hocker’s filed complaints, but failed to provide any reasonable resolution and continue breached its judiciary duty as an insurer. CIC further failed to substantiate any inapplicable or voidable portion of the executed contract which CIC can avoid its duty. There was no arbitration or mediation clauses existed within the executed contract. CIC owed Mr. Hocker’s benefits under the policy which CIC unreasonably withheld. See Progressive West Ins. Co v. Yolo County Superior Court
We are presently litigating the issue of permanency. The claimant has an IME from Dr. Kaufman, which found a permanent total disability. We recently deposed Dr. Kaufman and he
The prosecution supported two key witnesses, both of whom were deceptive and one of whom having griped in a recording pretrial meet withheld from the defense that he was being compelled to