Mr. Villanueva Case Summary

Marcus Ashmore and Terrell Lee Green were maintenance workers for J.P. Thayer Co., Inc. under supervisor Gene Fye. After a particular incident of harassment on January 16, 2001, Plaintiffs reported Fye to Tricia Johnson, the Assistant Property Manager. At this time, Johnson did nothing about the complaint. The harassment continued, and on January 26, Plaintiffs complained to the Property Manager, Mary Frances de Rivera. In response, de Rivera verbally reprimanded Fye. This, however, did not stop Fye’s harassment. Instead of reporting the behavior to Defendant, Plaintiffs hired an attorney who wrote a letter to Defendant saying that Ashmore and Green were going to file charges of discrimination with the EEOC. On February 22, Fye was fired by Defendant. This came three days after getting the letter and about a month after the initial harassment complaints.

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.

Applicant’s attorney, Mr. Juan Vera, appeared representing the applicant’s interest. Court reporting duties were provided by Ms. Elizabeth Maeyama, License No. 12060. Interpreting services were provided by Ms. Berta ZeFrench, Certification No. 36353581. The deposition started at approximately 2:24 p.m. and lasted until 3:15 p.m. The applicant testified that she arrived at applicant’s attorney’s office at 1:00 p.m. to prepare for her deposition; therefore, I anticipate applicant’s attorney’s office’s §5710 invoice to be for no more than two hours and 15 minutes. I will make a more specific recommendation regarding the yet to

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.

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

Issues: Throughout the trail process on behalf of the court the inquiry for exceptions to the charge inaccuracy developed regarding instructions. The appellant was seeking a claim based of the defense of his

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

Background: Based on the given complaint, on the 28th of March in 2014 the Plaintiff, Linda D. Daugherty suffered an injury on the property of Rauleigh J. Ringer at 814 N. Liberty Street, Alexandria, IN. She is claiming her injury was a result of negligence spawning from the actions, or lack thereof, by Mr. Ringer and Casual Lifestyles Realty, Inc., in which the connection of these three parties has not been clarified with certainty within the claim. The Defendants, by counsel, Mark Maynard, and, pursuant to Rule 12(E) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, moved for a more definite statement of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. Mark Maynard argues if said Plaintiff could amend her complaint that is supposedly so vague and ambiguous, the newfound clarity would help the defense frame a response to said Plaintiff’s claim. No other information could be

Plaintiff’s allegations must show that Maloney’s behavior was sufficient to prove he is liable. Maloney’s commissions for the sale of insurance policies are insufficient evidence that he acted

Laurence Kaye (“Kaye”), appellant, an attorney, represented Linda Wilson-Gaskins (“Wilson-Gaskins”), appellee, in a wrongful termination lawsuit filed against Wilson-Gaskins’s former employer, Government Employees Insurance Co. (“GEICO”). Following that representation, Wilson-Gaskins filed a complaint against Kaye alleging “legal malpractice.” The Circuit Court for Montgomery County granted summary judgment in favor of Kaye and dismissed Wilson-Gaskins’s complaint. Wilson-Gaskins appealed the dismissal of her claim. We affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court and held that Wilson-Gaskins failed to make a prima facie case for professional negligence. We further held that a release contained in a settlement agreement between the parties

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.

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

As you know, the applicant recently completed the AME with Dr. Weiseltier. As predicted earlier, the lipoma on the applicant’s back was found to be non-industrial. The AME found that the applicant did not sustain injuries to any body part other than the left scapular area. Under the strict ratings, Dr. Weiseltier found 0% whole person impairment.

Were there actions that were intentional misrepresented in regards of the worker’s compensation in the summary judgement?