1 SAMPLE ACCEPTABLE PETITIONER'S OPENING BRIEF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CASE (updated January 1, 2011) Disclaimer: This sample brief is adapted from a real brief filed in a real case. Identifying information, including names, addresses, and telephone numbers, has been altered or omitted. The substance is either unchanged or, in only a few places, slightly modified or shortened. The court does not offer this brief for or otherwise endorse the substance of the arguments. This brief is presented only as a sample brief that acceptably complies with the form and format requirements of the Oregon Rules of Appellate Procedure (ORAP).
2 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of the Compensation of ) John Doe; Claimant. ) ) JOHN DOE, ) WCB Nos ; ) Petitioner, ) v. ) CA A ) SAIF CORPORATION; X ) CORPORATION; Y ) CORPORATION; and Z, INC., ) ) Respondents. ) PETITIONER'S OPENING BRIEF Judicial Review from the Workers' Compensation Board from the Opinion and Order dated June 28, 1999 and the Order on Review dated January 7, 2000 Robert Lawyer (OSB No ) Joan Attorney (OSB No ) Black, White & Blue Silver, Gold, et al. [address] [address] Telephone: (541) Telephone: (503) Of Attorneys for Petitioner Of Attorneys for Respondent Z, Inc. [continued inside cover] 4/00
3 David Barrister (OSB No ) SAIF Corporation [address] Telephone: (503) Of Attorneys for Respondent SAIF Corporation
4 i INDEX STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Nature of the Case and Relief Sought...1 Nature of the Order to be Reviewed...1 Basis for Appellate Jurisdiction...2 Effective Date for Judicial Review...2 Jurisdictional Basis of the Agency Action...2 Question Presented on Review...2 Summary of Argument...2 Summary of Facts...3 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR...5 The Board erred in its Order affirming the ALJ's Order of June 28, 1999, based on this conclusion: "The greater weight of the medical evidence establishes that claimant's hearing loss was caused in major part by age-related presbycusis, not noise exposure." (Rec 100.) ARGUMENT...5 CONCLUSION...8
5 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Statutes and Rules: OAR , 6, 8 OAR (4)(b)...6 ORS (7) and (8)...2 ORS (8)(a)...5 ORS (24)...6 ORS (8)...2 ORS ORS
6 1 PETITIONER'S BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Nature of the Case and Relief Sought Petitioner is a workers' compensation claimant whose claim for hearing loss was denied by respondent SAIF Corporation (SAIF) for respondent X Corporation (employer) and denied by respondent Z Corporation for respondent Y Corporation (employer). (Hereinafter respondents shall be referred to collectively as "SAIF"). SAIF and Z, Inc. based their denials on their positions that petitioner's work, specifically the noise petitioner was exposed to at work, was not the major cause of his hearing loss. Petitioner (hereinafter "claimant") seeks reversal of the Workers' Compensation Board's Order on Review of January 7, 2000, affirming the Administrative Law Judge's Opinion and Order of June 28, 1999, which had approved Z, Inc.'s denial of October 9, 1998 and SAIF's denial of October 28, Nature of the Order to be Reviewed The order to be reviewed is an agency order, the Order on Review of the Workers' Compensation Board dated January 7, 2000, affirming the Administrative Law Judge's Opinion and Order of June 28, 1999, in a contested case.
7 2 Basis for Appellate Jurisdiction This court has jurisdiction pursuant to ORS (8), ORS and ORS (7) and (8). Effective Date for Judicial Review The Workers' Compensation Board entered its Order on Review on January 7, The petition for judicial review was filed February 3, Jurisdictional Basis of the Agency Action The Board had jurisdiction to issue its order under ORS Question Presented on Review The question on review is: Did the Board err in affirming the ALJ's Opinion and Order affirming SAIF's and Z, Inc.'s denials, finding that claimant's noise exposure at work was not the major contributing cause of his hearing loss, but the major cause was age-related presbycusis? Summary of Argument By finding age-related presbycusis hearing loss to be the major cause of claimant's hearing loss, the Board's decision is inconsistent with OAR and is, therefore, legal error. OAR states a clear policy that, to consider compensable any hearing loss, it must be above and beyond the anticipated age-related loss due to the "presbycusis factor." Therefore, in evaluating the major cause of such hearing loss, presbycusis may not be considered
8 3 as a competing cause, because the compensable loss under consideration is, by definition, that loss which exceeds the "presbycusis factor." Summary of Facts as follows: The Board adopted and based its decision on the ALJ's findings, which are "The claimant, 59 years old at this time, was employed by X Corporation and its successor, Y Corporation, between [dates] (claimant's testimony). During most of that time, he worked much of the time around equipment, particularly the debarker, that produced very loud noise, as high as 110 decibels (claimant's testimony). There was no evidence that during the same period of time the claimant was regularly exposed to off-the-job high noise levels. When he started to work for X Corporation, the claimant demonstrated slight to mild low frequency hearing loss (Exhibits 40, 41). In 1976, Dr. Bridget Beta saw the claimant at the request of Dr. Ralph Alpha for evaluation of a perforated eardrum (Exhibit 5). In addition to a report on the perforated eardrum, Dr. Beta reported to Dr. Alpha that the claimant demonstrated 'an underlying binaural sensorineural loss of occupational origin' (Exhibit 5). The claimant testified that he was not told of any occupationally caused hearing loss before he received Dr. Alpha's report. Audiograms administered to the claimant every year from July 19, 1977 to April 13, 1992 demonstrated a loss of hearing inconsistent with the pattern for noise-induced hearing loss (Exhibits 15, 27, 28). "On June 28, 1998, the claimant filed a claim for hearing loss (Exhibit 16). Dr. Gregory Gamma examined the claimant on July 1 relative to hearing loss (Exhibit 20). Dr. Gamma recorded a history by the claimant of significant noise exposure at X Corporation (Exhibit 20). Based on preliminary audiologic studies, Dr. Gamma reported that the claimant's hearing loss was an atypical pattern for noise exposure (Exhibit 20). After a more complete audiologic examination, Dr. Gamma reported his impression of the claimant's condition as 'noise-induced hearing loss' (Exhibit 22).
9 4 "Dr. Denice Delta, an otolaryngologist, examined the claimant in August 1998, had an audiogram administered and has reviewed the claimant's medical records, including those following his discharge from the Army and before his employment at X Corporation (Exhibits 27, 40). Based on that examination and those records, Dr. Delta's opinion is that the claimant has a sensorineural hearing loss that is not seen in noise-induced hearing loss; that the claimant has had the same flat type hearing loss 'for many years,' which apparently progressed after 1963 but in a pattern definitely 'not one of occupational noise'; that the claimant apparently has had a progressive degenerative disease of the inner ear that began over 36 years ago and the major contributing cause of his hearing loss is not his employment at X Corporation (Exhibits 27, 40). "Edmund Epsilon, a Ph.D. and clinical audiologist, has reviewed the records in this case, including the claimant's military records prior to his employment for X Corporation, and reported his opinion that the claimant's audiometric pattern is inconsistent with noise-induced hearing loss; that the claimant's hearing loss as documented from 1977 to 1992 was approximately what one would expect just from the aging process (presbycusis); that the claimant's pre-employment hearing loss in combination with subsequent presbycusis represents the major contributing cause of his hearing loss (Exhibits 28, 41). "Dr. Zoe Zeta, also an otolaryngologist, reviewed the claimant's file, including audiograms extending from 1977 to 1992 and reported that based on the small change in his hearing after 1977, occupational noise exposure did not contribute to any worsening of his hearing after 1977; that the claimant's hearing loss involved the lower frequencies to a moderate degree, which is not characteristic of noiseinduced damage (Exhibit 36). "Eric Eta, a licensed audiologist retired since 1993 whose employment did not involve any occupational hearing evaluations after 1973, testified at the hearing and stated that he evaluated noise exposure at most Eden County mills in 1972 and 1973; that the debarker probably produced the loudest ongoing noise, as much as 110 decibels; that, in his opinion and considering all possible causes, the claimant's employment exposure probably was the major
10 5 contributing cause of his hearing loss. Mr. Eta was unable to calculate the presbycusis factor in the claimant's hearing loss, but testified that, as to that factor, everyone is different. He also stated that, although the claimant's audiogram results are atypical for noise exposure, again, everyone is affected differently by noise exposure. "On October 9, 1998, on behalf of Y Corporation, Z Corporation denied compensability of the claimant's hearing loss (Exhibit 29). On October 28, on behalf of X Corporation, SAIF Corporation denied compensability of and responsibility for the claimant's hearing loss (Exhibit 31.)" (Rec ) Preservation of Error ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR The Board erred in its Order affirming the ALJ's Order of June 28, 1999, based on this conclusion: (Rec 80.) "The greater weight of the medical evidence established that claimant's hearing loss was caused in major part by age-related presbycusis, not noise exposure." Standard of Review The Court of Appeals reviews the Board's interpretation of law for errors of law. ORS (8)(a). ARGUMENT In adopting and affirming the ALJ's decision, the Board supplements the ALJ's reasoning by stating:
11 6 (Rec 80.) "However, it is immaterial whether claimant's presbycusis is a 'preexisting condition' within the meaning of ORS (24). Here, claimant must prove that work exposure was the major contributing cause of his hearing loss. * * * The greater weight of the medical evidence establishes that claimant's hearing loss was caused in major part by age-related presbycusis, not noise exposure." However, careful consideration of the status presbycusis has been given in the administrative rule governing hearing loss reveals that a hearing loss claim must be judged by the extent to which the loss exceeds the normal, expected agerelated presbycusis loss. Therefore, in considering the question of major cause in a work-related hearing loss claim, presbycusis may not be considered among the competing causes, because the work-related hearing loss, by definition, only occurs in excess of normally occurring presbycusis loss. OAR (4)(b) provides: "Hearing loss due to presbycusis shall be based on the worker's age at the time of the audiogram. Consult the Presbycusis Correction Values Table below. Find the figure for presbycusis hearing loss. Subtract this figure from the sum of the audiogram entries. These values represent the total decibels of hearing loss in the six standard frequencies which normally results from aging. [Table not included. See ED. NOTE.]" [The ED. NOTE provides that the tables and formula(s) referenced in this rule are not printed in the OAR compilation. Copies are available from the agency.] A review of the other provisions of OAR reveals an intent to compensate workers for "loss of normal hearing which results from an on-the-job injury or exposure" subject to an offset for hearing loss existing before the injury.
12 7 Section (4) of the rule is used to determine the monaural percentage of impairment for the baseline audiogram; presbycusis is evaluated based on the worker's age at the time of the audiogram. The record here shows that claimant was subject to such "baseline" testing; and, after his period of significant exposure, was notified that he had experienced a "significant shift since baseline," that is, a loss of hearing in excess of what was normally expected. (Exs 7, 9, 10, 14 and 15.) The application of this principle of evaluating a hearing loss by subtracting the "presbycusis factor" is also evidence in the record of Denice Delta, M.D., the audiogram taken on August 31, (Ex 27/5.) The rule states a clear intent to compensate workers for hearing loss after the loss existing as a result of presbycusis has been taken into account and subtracted or offset. Therefore, the remaining amount of hearing loss is, by definition, compensable, if shown to be work-related. Or, put another way, the extent of presbycusis loss may not be considered as a competing cause when evaluating the compensable loss from a high-noise work environment because it has already been factored into the calculation of the extent of loss from work exposure. The Board's decision allows presbycusis as a competing cause and plays it against the work exposure by weighing the causes of the total loss rather than
13 8 determining the net loss resulting from the work exposure after taking into account the "presbycusis factor." This allows insurers to "have their cake and eat it too." Rather than determining the amount of loss compensable by taking into account the presbycusis factor, the Board's approach allows eliminating any claim whatsoever for hearing losses related to high-noise work environments if the workers is old enough to allow for more than half of his total overall loss to be calculated as presbycusis. Adopting such an approach flies in the face of the clear intent of the rule and is, therefore, legal error. CONCLUSION For all of the reasons set forth above, the Workers' Compensation Board's Order on Review of January 7, 2000 should be reversed, and this matter should be remanded for another hearing before an Administrative Law Judge to determine claimant's hearing loss in excess of the appropriate presbycusis factor, consistent with OAR Respectfully submitted, BLACK, WHITE & BLUE Robert Lawyer, OSB No Of Attorneys for Petitioner
14 ER-1 EXCERPT OF RECORD INDEX Opinion and Order of the ALJ (Rec 98)...ER-2 Order on Review of the Workers' Compensation Board (Rec 110)...ER-3
15 ER-2 OPINION AND ORDER OF THE ALJ [ copy of the opinion and order of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ 5.50.]
16 ER-3 ORDER ON REVIEW OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD [Insert a copy of the order on review of the Workers' Compensation Board in this excerpt of record portion of the brief. See ORAP 5.50.]
17 CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH BRIEF LENGTH AND TYPE SIZE REQUIREMENTS Brief length I certify that (1) this brief complies with the word-count limitation in ORAP 5.05(2)(b) and (2) the word count of this brief (as described in ORAP 5.05(2)(a)) is 1,905 words. Type size I certify that the size of the type in this brief is not smaller than 14 point for both the text of the brief and footnotes as required by ORAP 5.05(4)(f). Robert Lawyer, OSB No Of Attorneys for Petitioner
18 PROOF OF SERVICE I certify that on the 3rd day of April, 2000 the original and twenty (20) copies of the foregoing Petitioner's Brief were deposited in the United States Post Office at Anycity, Oregon, with first class postage prepaid thereon addressed to: Appellate Court Administrator Appellate Courts Records Section Records Section 1163 State Street Salem OR I further certify that on the 3rd day of April, 2000 two (2) copies of the foregoing Petitioner's Brief were deposited in the United States Post Office at Anycity, Oregon, with first class postage prepaid thereon addressed to: Mr. David Barrister SAIF Corporation [address] Mr. Joan Attorney Attorney at Law [address] Mr. John Solicitor Attorney General [address] Robert Lawyer, OSB No Of Attorneys for Petitioner
SAMPLE ACCEPTABLE APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASE (updated August 2015) Disclaimer: This sample brief is adapted from a real brief filed in a real case. Identifying information, including
FILED: February, 01 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of the Compensation of David L. Brumage, Claimant. DAVID L. BRUMAGE, Petitioner, v. ESCO CORPORATION, Respondent. Workers'
United States Department of Labor C.D., Appellant and U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, Chicago, IL, Employer Appearances: Appellant, pro se Office of Solicitor, for the Director Docket No. 15-1523 Issued:
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department P.O. Box 7288, Capitol Station Albany, NY 12224-0288 Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court (518) 471-4777 fax (518) 471-4750
NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Appellant: [X] (Worker) Participant entitled to respond to this appeal: The Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board) APPEAL DECISION Representative:
LED COWIJ QP APPEALS 2013 MAR 19 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHIN AN 8: 39 DIVISION II B ROBERT LONG, deceased, and AILEEN LONG, Petitioner /Beneficiary, No. 43187-4 II - Appellant, V. WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of the Application for a Service Permit Filed by: Ashley N. Carson 18140 Seaman Street Sandy, OR 97055 FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS
(16 May 2001 - to date) COMPENSATION FOR OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND DISEASES ACT 130 OF 1993 (Gazette No. 15158, Notice No. 1850 dated 6 October 1993. Commencement date: 1 March 1994 [Proc.No.115, Gazette
General Information on Representing Yourself in a Workers Compensation Case Idaho Industrial Commission PO Box 83720 Boise, ID 83720-0041 Telephone: (208) 334-6000 Fax: (208) 332-7558 www.iic.idaho.gov
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Department of Employment Services Labor Standards Bureau Office of Hearings and Adjudication COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD (202) 671-1394-Voice (202) 673-6402-Fax CRB
M.R. 3140 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Order entered February 16, 2011. (Deleted material is struck through and new material is underscored.) Effective immediately, Supreme Court Rules
RISK MANAGEMENT Noise and Hearing Conservation Resources and information for developing Patient handling programs in health care Employers with workplaces that have excessive levels of noise need to implement
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 0135 September Term, 2002 TRU-ROL COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. ARNOLD C. YOX Davis, Adkins, Rodowsky, Lawrence F., (Retired, Specially Assigned) JJ.
No. 291 August 7, 2013 795 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of the Compensation of Randi P. Ayres, Claimant. VIGOR INDUSTRIAL, LLC, Petitioner, v. Randi P. AYRES, Respondent.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 453-04-4583.M2 TWCC MR NO. M2-04-0846-01 FIRST RIO VALLEY MEDICAL, P.A., Petitioner V. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., Respondent BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DECISION
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION WAYNE M. McKIBBEN Claimant VS. DRY BASEMENT & FOUNDATION SYSTEMS Respondent Docket No. 1,034,394 AND ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE CO.
RULE IX MODIFICATION, TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF TEMPORARY DISABILITY BENEFITS A. TERMINATION OF TEMPORARY DISABILITY BENEFITS BY AN ADMISSION OF LIABILITY IN CLAIMS ARISING PRIOR TO JULY 2, 1987, AT
Chapter: CLAIMS Subject: HEARING LOSS Effective Date: April 28, 1994 Last Updated: November 28, 2013 REFERENCE: Occupational Health And Safety Act R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. 0-1.1, General Regulations, Section
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION KIMBERLY OWEN ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,050,199 MARKIN GROUP ) Respondent ) AND ) ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY )
IN THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2015 MTWCC 13 WCC No. 2015-3545 CAR WERKS, LLC Petitioner vs. UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND Respondent/Third Party Petitioner vs. JAMES E. GAWRONSKI
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-7-2015 Carpentertown Coal and Coke Co v. Director OWCP US Dept of Labor Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY SERVICES BUREAU OF HEARINGS In the matter of Bureau of Health Services, Petitioner v Marie L. Falquet, Respondent / Docket No. 2000-1297 Agency No.
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1027 September Term, 2013 RONALD G. CHAMBERS v. COLIN M. BULEY Krauser, C.J. Zarnoch, Reed, JJ. Opinion by Zarnoch, J. Filed: December 29, 2014
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION GEORGIA R. KATZ ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,068,293 USD 229 ) Self-Insured Respondent ) ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claimant
IN THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2007 MTWCC 52 WCC No. 2006-1625 BARRY SHELLEY Petitioner vs. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY Respondent/Insurer. ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT/INSURER
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
Cause No.: In Re: Order for Foreclosure Concerning [property address] Under Tex. R. Civ. P. 736 Petitioner: Respondent(s): In the [type of court, e.g., district, county, or probate] Court County, Texas
WINNING SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY BENEFITS: A STEP BY STEP BY STEP GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING AND APPLYING FOR SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY BENEFITS By ELLIOTT ANDALMAN, ESQ Foreword Here at Andalman & Flynn,
EMPLOYEES GUIDE TO APPEALING A WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM DENIAL Appeals of workers compensation claim denials are handled by the Labor Commission s Adjudication Division. If you disagree with the claim
IN THE MATTER OF, TIMOTHY BURROUGHS, Claimant, AHD No. 06-094 v. OWC No. 597835 J & J MAINTENANCE, INC., and AIG CLAIMS SERVICES, Employer/Carrier. Appearances REBEKAH ARCH MILLER, ESQUIRE For the Claimant
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION GARRETT QUINT ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 208,451 VANDEE STUCCO ) Respondent ) AND ) ) AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL ) INSURANCE COMPANY
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO. 01-1536 JOHN H. CHARLES, APPELLANT, V. ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE. On Appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals
Boney, Richard, Dec'd THIRD PARTY ACTIONS (RCW 1.) Multiple beneficiaries The third party recovery distribution is not altered when monies from third parties are received after a worker's death. Monies
TITLE 102 PROCEDURAL RULE WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW SERIES 1 RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 102-1-1. General. 1.1. Scope. -- This procedural rule is intended to set forth the procedures for
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT Division of Workers Compensation 7 CCR 1101-3 WORKERS COMPENSATION RULES OF PROCEDURE Rule 5 Claims Adjusting Requirements 5-1 COMPLETION OF DIVISION FORMS (D) Information
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 THE CLASSIC LIGHTING EMPORIUM, INC. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE Appellee No. 3158 EDA 2014 Appeal
1202 Pa. Moses THOMAS, Petitioner v. WORKERS COMPENSATION AP- PEAL BOARD (DELAWARE COUNTY), Respondent. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted on Briefs Oct. 1, 1999. Decided Feb. 25, 2000. Following
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1594 STEVEN LINCOLN, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; CERES MARINE
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Advanced Dermatology Associates : (Selective Insurance Company of : America), : Petitioners : : v. : No. 2186 C.D. 2014 : Submitted: May 22, 2015 Workers Compensation
!Undefined Bookmark, I IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE C10129419 RODGER BROOKS Plaintiff v FORD MOTOR COMPANY OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED Defendant --- MAGISTRATE: Magistrate B.R. Wright WHERE
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Name & Address of Lower Court: District Court, City and County of Denver, CO 1437 Bannock Street, Denver, CO 80202 Trial Court Judge: The Honorable
SOAH DOCKET NO. 453-05-2405.M2 TWCC MRD NO. M2-05-0052-01 GREAT AMERICAN ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner V. SHAHID RASHID, M.D. Respondent BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DECISION
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY SERVICES BUREAU OF HEARINGS In the matter of Sharon A. Jones, Petitioner v State Employees Retirement System, Respondent / Docket No. 2000-1214 Agency
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Dustin Z. Slaweski, : Petitioner : : v. : : Department of Transportation, : Bureau of Driver Licensing, : No. 171 C.D. 2014 Respondent : Submitted: July 3, 2014
APPEAL NO. 100822 FILED AUGUST 23, 2010 This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was held on June
HYPOTHETICAL--ANSWER SERVICE CONNECTION FOR HEARING LOSS AND TINNITUS ANSWER ENTITLEMENT TO SERVICE CONNECTION FOR BILATERAL HEARING LOSS AND TINNITUS. I. Background A. The facts presented are from a real
BEFORE THE ALASKA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS In the Matter of ) ) K L. V ) OAH No. 11-0204-PER ) Div. R&B No. 2011-011 DECISION I. Introduction K L. V appealed the Public Employees Retirement System
STATE OF MARYLAND BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 6 St. Paul Street Suite 601 Baltimore, Maryland 21202-1608 Telephone: (410 767-8228 Toll Free Telephone: 1-800-827-1135 SUMMARY ABSTRACT DECISION OF THE MARYLAND
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION MARK RALEIGH ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,039,074 CHECKERS FOODS ) Respondent ) AND ) ) ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE COMPANY ) OF
2011031543 Trial STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION 270 Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1299 (404) 656-2930 www.sbwc.georgia.gov A hearing was held on June 11, 2013, to determine the Employee
STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT OFFICE Lori M. Wilkinson, ) Employee/Claimant, ) ) vs. ) ) Work Impex Trading Corporation,
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION JERIS L. WUNDERLICH, Deceased Claimant VS. CASEY'S GENERAL STORES, INC. Respondent Docket No. 1,035,955 AND EMCASCO INSURANCE CO.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO THOMAS B. TENHUNDFELD, vs. Plaintiff-Appellant, UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS. CO., Defendant-Appellee, and MARSHA P. RYAN, ADMINISTRATOR,
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Pennsylvania Uninsured : Employers Guaranty Fund, : Petitioner : : v. : : Workers Compensation Appeal Board : (Lyle and Walt & Al s : Auto & Towing Service), :
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION DENNIS E. BURDETTE Claimant VS. MENNONITE HOUSING REHAB SERV. Respondent Docket No. 1,042,321 AND ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INS. CO.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Scott Lee Staron, d/b/a Lee s Metal Roof Coatings No. 2140 C.D. 2014 & Painting, Argued June 15, 2015 Petitioner v. Workers Compensation Appeal Board (Farrier),
Appendix I: Select Legislative Appendix I: Select Federal Legislative is and Mesothelioma Benefits Act H.R. 6906, 93rd 1973). With respect to claims for benefits filed before December 31, 1974, would authorize
SOAH DOCKET NO. 454-08-3756.M4 DWC NO. ERIC VANDERWERFF, D.C, Petitioner V. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DECISION AND ORDER Eric Vanderwerff,
COMBUSTION ENGINEERING 524(g) ASBESTOS PI TRUST ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) PROCEDURES Pursuant to Section 5.10 of the Combustion Engineering 524(g) Asbestos PI Trust Distribution Procedures (
GENERAL INFORMATION FOR UNREPRESENTED INJURED WORKERS ABOUT THE WORKERS COMPENSATION HEARING PROCESS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 1. Where can I get information about the hearing process?... 2 2. Where else
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-14-654 JAMES A. NICHOLS V. APPELLANT Opinion Delivered FEBRUARY 25, 2015 APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION [NO. F404691] MICRO PLASTICS,
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 00-341V (Filed August 6, 2003) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NANCY R. HILLIARD, for OWEN S. HILLIARD, a minor, National Childhood
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT APPELLATE DIVISION ROBERT BUELL ) ) VS. ) W.C.C. 03-00724 ) COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES ) DECISION OF THE APPELLATE
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION ROBERT E. WRIGHT ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 159,556 U.S.D. NO. 259 ) Respondent ) Self-Insured ) ORDER Both parties request
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Continental Tire of the Americas, LLC v. Illinois Workers Compensation Comm n, 2015 IL App (5th) 140445WC Appellate Court Caption CONTINENTAL TIRE OF THE AMERICAS,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 10-3272 In re: JOHN W. HOWARD, Debtor NOT PRECEDENTIAL ROBERT O. LAMPL, Appellant VANASKIE, Circuit Judge. On Appeal from the United States District
Case: 15-30322 Document: 00513241147 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT KENNETH L. MORGAN, JR., Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth
FILED: November, 01 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON LANCE A. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY STANDARDS AND TRAINING, Respondent. Office of Administrative Hearings 0 A
Noise Induced Hearing Loss Awareness help Noise Induced Deafness Awareness: Contents Noise Induced Hearing Loss Awareness Contents What can cause hearing loss? What are the symptoms? What is hearing loss?
BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER PANEL for the STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND BUSINESS SERVICES INSURANCE DIVISION In the Matter of the Final Premium Audit of ) Case No. INS 01-11-010 ) ) PORTLAND
NOTICE Decision filed 08/20/13. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2013 IL App (5th 120093WC-U NO. 5-12-0093WC
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IA Construction Corporation and : Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., : Petitioners : : v. : No. 2151 C.D. 2013 : Argued: November 10, 2014 Workers Compensation Appeal
IN THE WORKERS= COMPENSATION COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2011 MTWCC 27 WCC No. 2006-1750 ROBERT LANMAN Petitioner vs. MONTANA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE AUTHORITY Respondent/Insurer. ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT
Before The State Of Wisconsin DIVISION OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the Matter of the Crime Victim Compensation Application of GP Case No. CV-02-0005 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER On February
LARKIN v. WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BD. OF CALIFORNIA S216986 Supreme Court of California March 6, 2014 Reporter: 2014 CA S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 407 JOHN LARKIN, Plaintiff, Appellant and Petitioner, v.