STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION 270 Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia (404) STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION 270 Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1299 (404) 656-2930 www.sbwc.georgia.gov STATEMENT OF THE CASE"

Transcription

1 Trial STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION 270 Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia (404) A hearing was held on June 11, 2013, to determine the Employee s entitlement to workers compensation benefits. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an accepted claim for the October 19, 2011 date of injury. The issue that must be addressed in this award is a dispute regarding calculation of the average weekly wage ( AWW ) which is an unusually complicated issue in this case. The Employee contends that there was concurrent similar employment; the Employer/Self-Insurer contends there was not. The Employee also argues that the defense of this issue was unreasonable and that assessed fees should be awarded, which the Employer/Self-Insurer disputes. Based on the stipulations of the parties, consideration of all admissible evidence and an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses who testified at the trial of the case, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Due to the stipulations of the parties, there is no issue as to applicability of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Board, venue in Fulton County, coverage as self-insured, employment and notice. The Employee has the burden of proof with regard to the amount of the average weekly wage. Masterpiece Finishing Co. v. Callahan, 180 Ga. App. 216, 348 S.E. 2d 586 (1986). O.C.G.A. Section provides three methods for calculating average weekly wage. The Employer/Self- Insurer calculated an AWW using the third method of AWW calculation, the full time weekly wage. The Employer/Self-Insurer contends the AWW is $ with a TTD rate of $ The Employee is currently being paid indemnity benefits in this amount. The Employee contends that the average weekly wage should be $ and the TTD rate should be $ The Employee was hired by the Employer in 2008 to work as a school bus driver. While she drove a school bus only during the nine month academic year, her wages were paid out over a twelve month period. During the summer, the Employee worked for QDA, a company that transported new school buses from the manufacturer in Atlanta across the country to the school districts that ordered new buses. The Employee worked for QDA in the summer in 2010 and The first issue that must be addressed is whether this employment is concurrent, similar employment. 1. Is the work similar? The Employer/Self-Insurer first argues that this is not similar employment because, although the Employee drove the same type school bus for each job, she was driving a bus over state lines and not transporting children. In each job, the same type and size school bus was driven, and the same skill set for operating a school bus was used. I find that driving a school bus for delivery to a school system was similar employment to a school bus driver who transports children. See O.C.G.A.Section Is the work concurrent?

2 The next issue is whether the employment was concurrent. The Employer/Insurer contends that this work was not concurrent because the Employee did it during the summer when school was not in session. During the thirteen weeks prior to her compensable accident, the Employee in fact did work for QDA. The Employer/Insurer also argue that the work was not concurrent because it was never contemporaneous with her school bus driver work. However, there is no requirement that contemporaneous work occur on the same day. Many workers perform their second job over the weekend, days when they are not scheduled to work for their primary employer. This is work during the summer is akin to an Employee working over the weekend during the academic school year. Also, the Employee was paid for her school system job over a twelve month period. She earned $1,263 per month for twelve months a year from the school system Employer. I find that the work that the Employee performed for QDA in the thirteen weeks prior to the compensable injury was concurrent and similar in character and it should be included in calculating the AWW. See Thomaston Mills, Inc. v. Kierbow, 77 Ga. App 368, 339 S.E. 2d 361 (1985). 3. What did the Employee earn? This dispute does not end with the inclusion of the QDA income in the AWW calculation. Another issue is what the Employee earned working for QDA and whether this was sufficiently proved. The Employee testified that she was paid by this employer in part before the trip in the anticipation that she would have money to pay for gas and tolls and other expenses, and then her second check would come after the bus delivery. The Employee s testimony as to her pay for these jobs differed from the pay card amount. The Employee testified that during the first trip from 7-18 to 7-20 she earned $ net after expenses; however, her pay card reflected $ on its face. The Employee said that the cost of the bond was taken out of that payment, but that QDA paid that bond for her as well as toll costs in a second payment. The Employee testified that during the second trip from 7-22 to 7-26 she earned $ net after expenses. Her pay card reflected $ on its face. The Employee testified that during the third trip from 7-28 to 7-30 she earned $ net after expenses. Her pay card reflected $ The Employee did not provide additional banking documents or other evidence to support her testimony that she earned additional money from these trips. The Employee bears the burden of proof, and I decline to find that she earned more than the amount reflected on the pay cards. I find that the Employee earned the amount reflected on her pay cards working for QDA which is $1, Calculation of Weekly Benefits The compensable accident occurred on October 19, The thirteen week period prior to the injury was from July 20 to October 19. The Employee made three trips for QDA during the thirteen week period preceding the compensable accident earning $1, during that time. The Employer/Insurer contend the third method of calculation should be used because the Employee had not worked thirteen weeks into the academic school year when the injury was sustained. As a result, they argue, the Employee had not worked substantially the whole of thirteen weeks. The Employer/Insurer called the workers compensation specialist who calculated the AWW used in the WC-6. She testified that she used the Employee s salary, the third method of AWW calculation, because the Employee did not work thirteen weeks prior to the injury and so the first method of calculation was inapplicable. She also testified that there is not a similarly situated employee because no other school bus driver worked over the summer so she could not use the second method of calculation. According to this witness, the base salary of a bus driver is $18.63 per hour for working 25 hours per week. The Employee did not dispute this testimony as to hourly wages or hours per week provisions in her contract. Nor

3 does the Employer/Insurer dispute that the Employee was paid $1, per month over a twelve month period, not just the nine month school year. In O Kelley v. Hall County Board of Education, 243 Ga. App. 522, 532 S.E. 2d 427 (2000), the Employee worked food service for the Dari-Spot for five years when she was hired first as a part time temporary then as a permanent cafeteria worker for a school system. Seven weeks after she was hired for the part time school system job, she was injured. The Court of Appeals found that the AWW calculation in this case for the school system job needed to be calculated using the third method, the full time weekly wage rate, because as a new hire the Employee had not worked substantially the whole of thirteen weeks before the injury. The Employee argued that the AWW calculation for the Dari-Spot job needed to be calculated in a different way, using the first method, since the Employee had worked in that part time job for five years. In O Kelley, the ALJ and full board held that the first method should be used for Dari Spot job and the third method used in the school system job as the Employee just started working there, and also switched from a substitute lunchroom worker job to a full time position which was a contract job in the seven weeks she worked there. To do otherwise unfairly diminished the claimant s AWW. The superior court reversed, but the Court of Appeals upheld the Full Board decision that the first method should be used for the job held for years but the third method should be used for the job held for seven weeks. While the Employer/Self-Insurer argues that O Kelley supports their position that the third method contract rate should be used when a school system academic year starts, this case is different in that the Employee has worked for years for the school system, and was paid over a twelve month period. In O Kelley, the Employee had just started to work, and also had gone from a part time to full time position. O Kelley also stands for the proposition that the Employee is able to use both a school system wage as well as a prior job worked over the summer when calculating an AWW, and that the third method is to be used when the other two methods cannot be fairly used. In O Kelley, the school system was using the calculation to unfairly limit the Employee s income, and so the ALJ and Full Board determined the different methods should be used to calculate income from different jobs. The Act specifically provides that O.C.G.A. Section (1) is the preferred method of computing AWW, to be used when an Employee has worked substantially the whole of thirteen weeks. See also KISSIAH, GEORGIA WORKERS COMPENSATION LAW Section 13.06[1]. In this case, the Employee received income wages from the school system, her employer of many years, for the entire thirteen week period. She therefore is entitled to an AWW calculated by using the first method for this Employer, and she is entitled to use her income from her second job to calculate the AWW. I find that the Employee s AWW should be $ I find that the work that the Employee performed for QDA in the thirteen weeks prior to the compensable injury should be included. 5. Assessed Attorney s Fees The Employee has requested an award of 25% added on assessed attorney s fees. I find, however, that there was a very reasonable dispute as to the method of calculating the AWW. The request for assessed attorney s fees is denied.

4 AWARD The Employee s request for an AWW determination of $ is granted. The Employee s request for assessed attorney s fees is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED, this the 03rd day of July, STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION This order is electronically signed and approved. Meg Hartin ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

5 Appeal STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION 270 Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA This appeal by the Employer/Self-Insurer is before the Appellate Division for review of an award by Judge Hartin, dated July 03, No cross-appeal was filed in this case. This appeal was argued orally before the Appellate Division on September 24, 2013, and the parties filed briefs in support of their positions. After a review of the record as a whole and the arguments presented, the Appellate Division now adopts in part, reverses in part, and amends in part the findings of fact, conclusions of law and award of Judge Hartin as its own. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW At issue at the hearing before the administrative law judge was the proper calculation of the Employee s average weekly wage pursuant to O.C.G.A At the time of the Employee s compensable work injury, she had been employed with the Employer, a county school system, since 2008 as a school bus driver. The Employee drove the school bus during the academic school year consisting of nine months, which excluded the summer months. In 2011, the Employee was paid a salary of $1, per month, which was paid in equal monthly checks over the twelve (12) month calendar year. During the summer months of 2010 and 2011, the Employee worked with a second employer and her job duties included driving new school buses across the country and delivering them to the purchaser. In 2011, the Employee s last assignment with the second employer ended on July 30, On appeal, the Employer/Self-Insurer assert the administrative law judge erred in finding the Employee was engaged in concurrent similar employment with another employer at the time of the injury and thus entitled to an increased average weekly wage. We agree in part, as discussed below. To begin, when an employee works for two separate and distinct employers prior to a work-related injury with one employer, an employee s average weekly wage may be calculated to include the wages from both employers if the work performed by the employee for the other employer is determined to be concurrent similar employment. See O.C.G.A (1); Board Rule 260(c); St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Company v. Idov, 88 Ga. App. 697 (1953); O Kelley v. Hall County Board of Education, 243 Ga. App. 522 (2000). In order for the concurrent similar employment doctrine to be applicable, the employee is required to prove not necessarily that both jobs were exactly identical but rather, that both jobs were sufficiently similar in nature and concurrent in time. Idov, supra; O Kelley, supra; St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Walters, 141 Ga. App. 579 (1977). Based upon our review of the record as a whole, we find the preponderance of competent and credible evidence establishes the Employee s job as a school bus driver with the Employer and her job with the second employer during the summer of 2011 were similar in nature. In both jobs, the Employee drove, in general, the same type and size school bus, which would require the same skill set to be utilized in the performance of her job duties. We, therefore find no error with the administrative law judge s finding that the Employee s work with the two employers was similar in nature.

6 Next, we must address whether the work with the two employers was concurrent as contemplated under the doctrine. In this case, upon a close review of the record before us, the preponderance of competent and credible evidence establishes the Employee s employment with the second employer ended prior to the work injury. As such, we find the Employee was not employed concurrently with another employer at the time of her work injury. See Idov, supra; O Kelley, supra; Walters, supra. Based on the foregoing, we find that the administrative law judge erred in her award with the finding the Employee s work with the Employer and her work during the summer of 2011 with another employer constituted concurrent employment under the concurrent similar employment doctrine. We therefore reverse. The Employer/Self-Insurer asserts additional enumerations of error and arguments concerning the inclusion and calculation of the Employee s wages with the second employer. Given our conclusion that the Employee was not engaged in concurrent similar employment at the time of her work injury, we find that these enumerations of error are moot and hence we need not address them. The Employer/Self-Insurer also asserted an error regarding the administrative law judge s calculation of the Employee s average weekly wage with the Employer. The Employer/Self-Insurer argues the administrative law judge erred in finding O.C.G.A (1) was the appropriate method for calculating the Employee s average weekly wage. We disagree. In this case, the Employee collects her wages for the academic school year over the course of a twelve (12) month period of time. The Court of Appeals has defined wages, under O.C.G.A , to mean any payment by the employer to the employee for services rendered in the course of employment that constitutes a net economic gain to the employee. Atlanta Journal & Constitution v. Sims, 200 Ga. App. 236 (1991). The Court in Sims noted the purpose of the Georgia workers compensation law was to compensate an employee fully for lost future earnings. Sims, supra; Idov, supra. As we previously have held, therefore, we find that the purpose of the average weekly wage formulations articulated in O.C.G.A is to arrive as fairly and accurately as possible at an estimation of the weekly income an employee reasonably would expect to receive had he/she not been injured. As was determined in Sims, supra, that determination may be more or less than the figure obtained in a strict hourly wage calculation and nevertheless, still comport with the legislative purpose of the statute. Based on the preponderance of competent and credible evidence in this case, therefore, we find no error with the administrative law judge s award finding the Employee s average weekly wage is to be calculated in compliance with O.C.G.A (1). Based on the foregoing, we find the preponderance of competent and credible evidence in the record establishes that the Employee received wages from the Employer for substantially the whole of thirteen (13) weeks prior to the work injury. The Employer/Self-Insurer also argue on appeal the administrative law judge erred by utilizing what appears to be an average monthly wage when determining the average weekly wage of the Employee with the Employer. We agree as it is unclear in the award how the administrative law judge calculated the Employee s average weekly wage and whether she used a monthly wage or average weekly wage. We therefore find that the administrative law judge erred by not making a specific finding of fact in the award as to the average weekly wage with the Employer. See O.C.G.A Based on our review of the record as a whole, we find the preponderance of competent and credible evidence establishes the Employee earned $1, per month with the Employer and multiplying same by twelve (12) months and then dividing by fiftytwo (52) weeks provides an average weekly wage of $337.62, which represents the weekly income the Employee reasonably would have expected to receive had she not been injured. Thus, to the extent that the administrative law judge made findings and conclusions of law inconsistent with our findings and conclusions herein, we reverse, strike and amend her Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as necessary to remain consistent and in accordance with our findings and conclusions herein. See generally Bankhead Enterprises v. Beavers, 267 Ga. 506, 480 S.E.2d 840 (1997); Russ v. American Telephone &

7 Telegraph, 228 Ga. App. 858, 493 S.E.2d 46 (1997); Bennett-Murray, Inc. v. Barnes, 222 Ga. App. 137, 473 S.E.2d 166 (1996). Except as stated above, the Appellate Division hereby accepts the findings of the administrative law judge in this matter as such findings are supported by a preponderance of competent and credible evidence contained within the record on review. See O.C.G.A (a). The Appellate Division adopts the conclusions of law of the administrative law judge, as such conclusions reflect an appropriate application of the Act to the findings of fact, except as stated above. AWARD Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Appellate Division vacates the Award section of Judge Hartin s award, dated July 03, 2013, and replaces it as follows: WHEREFORE, based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Employee s request for an average weekly wage of $ is hereby DENIED. We find the preponderance of competent and credible evidence establishes that the Employee s average weekly wage with the Employer is $ The Appellate Division adopts the award s denial of assessed attorney fees as its own. IT IS SO ORDERED, this the 07th day of January, Concurring: Presiding Judge Frank R. McKay. STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION :rb This order is electronically signed and approved. Harrill L. Dawkins/s. Judge Appellate Division Concurring in part, dissenting in part: Judge Elizabeth D. Gobeil. While I agree with the finding of similar, non-concurrent employment, I have concerns regarding the average weekly wage analysis and hence must respectfully dissent in part. At issue is the application of O.C.G.A to what has become a common scenario among public school employees: employees working only a portion of the year but receiving wages in pro-rated, equal installments throughout the calendar year. In assessing average weekly wage, the statute first directs us to O.C.G.A (1) which applies [i]f the injured employee shall have worked.during substantially the whole of 13 weeks preceding the injury. (Emphasis added.) In the current case, the injured employee did not work substantially the whole of the prior 13 weeks prior to the injury. The Majority nonetheless applies O.C.G.A (1) average weekly wage, emphasizing that the injured worker received weekly wages during the prior 13 weeks effectively correlating that fact to working to fit the facts into O.C.G.A (1).

8 As O.C.G.A (1) only applies when the injured worker has worked substantially the whole of the preceding 13 weeks, I find it inapplicable to the current case. The drafters chose work rather than earnings or payments to prioritize which subsection of O.C.G.A applies. By focusing on periods of payment versus work, the Majority s interpretation strains the plain meaning of the statute and the priority established by O.C.G.A (1)-260(3). Further, the Majority s approach effectively removes the 260(2) and 260(3) methods from ever being available to employees who work a partial year but are compensated throughout the calendar year for that work. The statute s drafters likely did not contemplate the foregoing public school employee scenario when structuring this code section. As a result, the Board is challenged to apply the law in a fair, consistent, and compliant manner unless and until the statute is changed. As the Majority notes, there is fact-finder discretion in determining average weekly wage, with the goal of approximating what the employee would have been paid had she not been injured. (For example, O.C.G.A (3) s preface illustrates this discretion and flexibility by stating: If either of the foregoing cannot reasonably and fairly be applied. (emphasis added).) While acknowledging the foregoing, I find that such flexibility does not extend to allowing us effectively to ignore the clear prerequisite for (1) s application (i.e., that the injured worker must have worked substantially the whole of the 13 weeks preceding the injury). If O.C.G.A (1) does not apply, we must follow the sequential directive of the statute and next consider pursuant to O.C.G.A (2) whether a similarly situated employee exists. In this case, the parties acknowledge that there is no such similarly situated employee. Finding that neither method set forth in O.C.G.A (1) nor 260 (2) apply to the facts of our case, I am compelled to find that the average weekly wage should be determined via O.C.G.A (3). The Majority s approach is commendable in that it results in a fair and consistent manner for determining the average weekly wage of employees falling into this public school employee category. Ultimately, however, I find that while commendable in its result, the Majority s approach is inconsistent with the plain wording of the statute.

STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION Heritage Tower, Suite 200, 18 9th Street Columbus, Georgia 31901 (706) 649-7372 www.sbwc.georgia.

STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION Heritage Tower, Suite 200, 18 9th Street Columbus, Georgia 31901 (706) 649-7372 www.sbwc.georgia. 2012003449 Trial Heritage Tower, Suite 200, 18 9th Street Columbus, Georgia 31901 (706) 649-7372 www.sbwc.georgia.gov STATEMENT OF CASE The employee requested a hearing in the above referenced claim for

More information

,ittyrrmr T,ourf of TfiFfift4

,ittyrrmr T,ourf of TfiFfift4 RENDERED: AUGUST 20, 2015 TO BE PUBLISHED,ittyrrmr T,ourf of TfiFfift4 2014-SC-000610-WC il GARRARD COUNTY FISCAL COURT [DATEct_10_,s- T.).%%k4cauerkr APPELLANT ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS V. CASE

More information

No. 7113 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 1962-NMSC-127, 71 N.M. 113, 376 P.2d 176 September 20, 1962

No. 7113 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 1962-NMSC-127, 71 N.M. 113, 376 P.2d 176 September 20, 1962 KENDRICK V. GACKLE DRILLING CO., 1962-NMSC-127, 71 N.M. 113, 376 P.2d 176 (S. Ct. 1962) E. T. KENDRICK, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GACKLE DRILLING COMPANY, Inc., and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company,

More information

2013 IL App (5th) 120093WC-U NO. 5-12-0093WC IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION DIVISION

2013 IL App (5th) 120093WC-U NO. 5-12-0093WC IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION DIVISION 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

More information

AN ANALYSIS OF SEC. 10 OF THE ILLINOIS WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT

AN ANALYSIS OF SEC. 10 OF THE ILLINOIS WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT CALCULATING AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGE UNDER ILLINOIS WC LAW: AN ANALYSIS OF SEC. 10 OF THE ILLINOIS WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT 2004 Michael E. Rusin Rusin Maciorowski & Friedman, Ltd. 10 South Riverside Plaza,

More information

No. 09SC586, Benchmark/Elite, Inc. v. Simpson, No. 09SC769, City of Colorado Springs v. Bennett Workers Compensation Maximum Rate of Benefits

No. 09SC586, Benchmark/Elite, Inc. v. Simpson, No. 09SC769, City of Colorado Springs v. Bennett Workers Compensation Maximum Rate of Benefits 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 and are posted on the Colorado Bar Association homepage

More information

STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION Heritage Tower, Suite 200, 18 9th Street Columbus, Georgia 31901 (706) 649-7372 www.sbwc.georgia.

STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION Heritage Tower, Suite 200, 18 9th Street Columbus, Georgia 31901 (706) 649-7372 www.sbwc.georgia. 2011019000 Trial Heritage Tower, Suite 200, 18 9th Street Columbus, Georgia 31901 (706) 649-7372 www.sbwc.georgia.gov STATEMENT OF CASE The employee requested a hearing in the above referenced case for

More information

STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION Suite 600, 270 Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1299 www.sbwc.georgia.

STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION Suite 600, 270 Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1299 www.sbwc.georgia. 1994007422 Trial STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION Suite 600, 270 Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1299 www.sbwc.georgia.gov (404) 656-2978 STATEMENT OF THE CASE On or around September 22,

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION TINA M. BREWER ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,037,976 CALAMAR ) Respondent ) AND ) ) ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY ) Insurance

More information

No. 45,056-WCA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * Versus * * * * * Ryan E. Gatti, Workers Compensation Judge * * * * *

No. 45,056-WCA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * Versus * * * * * Ryan E. Gatti, Workers Compensation Judge * * * * * Judgment rendered April 14, 2010. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, LSA-CCP. No. 45,056-WCA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA WILLIAM UPCHURCH

More information

How To Get A $224.05 Per Week Offset On Workers Compensation Benefits

How To Get A $224.05 Per Week Offset On Workers Compensation Benefits STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 12-1247 STATE, OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & DEVELOPMENT VERSUS PATRICK RICHARD ********** APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F301230. SAMUEL BEATTY, Employee. USA TRUCK, INC., Self-Insured Employer

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F301230. SAMUEL BEATTY, Employee. USA TRUCK, INC., Self-Insured Employer BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F301230 SAMUEL BEATTY, Employee USA TRUCK, INC., Self-Insured Employer CLAIMANT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 1, 2003 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION DENNIS L. HANDKE ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,019,159 ILC OF TOPEKA, INC. ) Respondent ) AND ) ) CINCINNATI INDEMNITY COMPANY

More information

2011 Changes to Kansas Workers Compensation Act

2011 Changes to Kansas Workers Compensation Act On April 18, 2011, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed a new law changing the workers compensation system. (H.B. 2134) amends the Workers Compensation Act (KSA Sec. 44-501, et seq.) by changing Sections

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Glenn Meyer, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Raytheon Company), No. 235 C.D. 2001 Respondent Submitted May 11, 2001 BEFORE HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER

More information

[Cite as State ex rel. McDulin v. Indus. Comm., 89 Ohio St.3d 390, 2000-Ohio- 205.]

[Cite as State ex rel. McDulin v. Indus. Comm., 89 Ohio St.3d 390, 2000-Ohio- 205.] [Cite as State ex rel. McDulin v. Indus. Comm., 89 Ohio St.3d 390, 2000-Ohio- 205.] THE STATE EX REL. MCDULIN, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLEE. [Cite as State ex rel. McDulin v. Indus.

More information

IN THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2006 MTWCC 30. WCC No. 2005-1325 DENNIS ZAHN. Petitioner. vs. TOWN PUMP, INC.

IN THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2006 MTWCC 30. WCC No. 2005-1325 DENNIS ZAHN. Petitioner. vs. TOWN PUMP, INC. IN THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2006 MTWCC 30 WCC No. 2005-1325 DENNIS ZAHN Petitioner vs. TOWN PUMP, INC. Respondent/Insurer and EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU MUTUAL COMPANY

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION ALVIN B. GOBBLE Claimant VS. DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES Respondent Docket No. 1,049,638 AND OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE CO. Insurance Carrier

More information

S14A1565. SPIES v. CARPENTER. James Spies ( husband ) and Cynthia Carpenter ( wife ) were married in

S14A1565. SPIES v. CARPENTER. James Spies ( husband ) and Cynthia Carpenter ( wife ) were married in 296 Ga. 131 FINAL COPY S14A1565. SPIES v. CARPENTER. THOMPSON, Chief Justice. James Spies ( husband ) and Cynthia Carpenter ( wife ) were married in California on December 17, 2000. They have two minor

More information

EMPLOYEES GUIDE TO APPEALING A WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM DENIAL

EMPLOYEES GUIDE TO APPEALING A WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM DENIAL 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

More information

Appellant S Permit Application - An Appeal From the Department of Business

Appellant S Permit Application - An Appeal From the Department of Business IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA FT. MYERS REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, LLC, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF

More information

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia FIRST DIVISION PHIPPS, C. J., ELLINGTON, P. J., and MCMILLIAN, J. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed

More information

2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. 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. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227

More information

2015 IL App (3d) 150059-U. Order filed October 2, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2015

2015 IL App (3d) 150059-U. Order filed October 2, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2015 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (3d 150059-U Order filed

More information

2016 IL App (2d) 141240WC-U FILED: NO. 2-14-1240WC IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION DIVISION

2016 IL App (2d) 141240WC-U FILED: NO. 2-14-1240WC IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION DIVISION NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2016 IL App (2d 141240WC-U FILED:

More information

NO. 4-09-0753 Filed 6/21/10 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PRESIDING JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH delivered the opinion of

NO. 4-09-0753 Filed 6/21/10 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PRESIDING JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH delivered the opinion of NO. 4-09-0753 Filed 6/21/10 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT CHARLES DALLAS, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. AMEREN CIPS, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee. ) ) ) ) )

More information

How To Get A Disability Payout

How To Get A Disability Payout IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SCHOOL BOARD OF LEE COUNTY AND JOHNS EASTERN COMPANY, INC., Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION

More information

THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES. By Craig R. White

THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES. By Craig R. White THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES By Craig R. White SKEDSVOLD & WHITE, LLC. 1050 Crown Pointe Parkway Suite 710 Atlanta, Georgia 30338 (770)

More information

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia WHOLE COURT NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/ March

More information

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 15. The Opinions handed down on the 25th day of February, 2003, are as follows:

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 15. The Opinions handed down on the 25th day of February, 2003, are as follows: FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 15 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 25th day of February, 2003, are as follows: BY KIMBALL, J.: 2002-C - 1634 RONALD J.

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F410959 C BEAN TRANSPORT, SELF INSURED COMPENSATION MANAGERS, TPA

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F410959 C BEAN TRANSPORT, SELF INSURED COMPENSATION MANAGERS, TPA BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F410959 MICHAEL LEE C BEAN TRANSPORT, SELF INSURED COMPENSATION MANAGERS, TPA CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 19, 2007

More information

[Cite as State ex rel. Exel Logistics, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 2004-Ohio-3594.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

[Cite as State ex rel. Exel Logistics, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 2004-Ohio-3594.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [Cite as State ex rel. Exel Logistics, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 2004-Ohio-3594.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio ex rel. Exel Logistics, Inc., : Relator, : v. : No.

More information

Should Claimant s Lawyers Have a Monopoly on Informal Communications with Treating Physicians in Workers Compensation Cases?

Should Claimant s Lawyers Have a Monopoly on Informal Communications with Treating Physicians in Workers Compensation Cases? Should Claimant s Lawyers Have a Monopoly on Informal Communications with Treating Physicians in Workers Compensation Cases? Prepared by Robert D. Ingram and Preston D. Holloway Moore Ingram Johnson &

More information

IN COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION DATED AND FILED September 25, 2003. Appeal No. 03-0258 DISTRICT IV

IN COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION DATED AND FILED September 25, 2003. Appeal No. 03-0258 DISTRICT IV COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED September 25, 2003 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION MARION A. DAVIS ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 216,570 CONSPEC MARKETING & MANUFACTURING CO. ) Respondent ) AND ) ) UNITED STATES

More information

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia SECOND DIVISION JOHNSON, P.J., ELLINGTON and MIKELL, JJ. NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BY THE COURT. September 22, 2009 In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A09A1222. WILLIAMS

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR SUSSEX COUNTY

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR SUSSEX COUNTY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR SUSSEX COUNTY JERRY CROUSE : Appellant, : C.A. No. S14A-12-002 RFS : v. : : HY-POINT DAIRY FARMS, INC. : Appellee. : Submitted: April 7, 2015 Decided:

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: MAY 14, 2010; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2009-CA-000282-MR AND NO. 2009-CA-000334-MR BRIAN G. SULLIVAN APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL

More information

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 1043. September Term, 2006 ATRELLE T. THOMAS GIANT FOOD, LLC, ET AL.

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 1043. September Term, 2006 ATRELLE T. THOMAS GIANT FOOD, LLC, ET AL. REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1043 September Term, 2006 ATRELLE T. THOMAS v. GIANT FOOD, LLC, ET AL. Eyler, Deborah S., Woodward, McAuliffe, John F. (Ret'd, Specially Assigned),

More information

JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE v. Record No. 061304 June 8, 2007. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Michael P. McWeeney, Judge

JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE v. Record No. 061304 June 8, 2007. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Michael P. McWeeney, Judge PRESENT: ALL THE JUSTICES MARK FIVE CONSTRUCTION, INC., TO THE USE OF AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE CO. OPINION BY JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE v. Record No. 061304 June 8, 2007 CASTLE CONTRACTORS, ET AL. FROM

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: AUGUST 9, 2013; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2012-CA-001808-WC FRANK J. CROUCHER APPELLANT PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION v. OF THE WORKERS

More information

LOUISIANA WORKERS COMPENSATION LAW CHANGES 2012

LOUISIANA WORKERS COMPENSATION LAW CHANGES 2012 LOUISIANA WORKERS COMPENSATION LAW CHANGES 2012 The following is a summary of the 2012 legislative amendments to the Louisiana Workers Compensation Act. The major law changes were at the urging of the

More information

McQuiddy, Jana v. Saint Thomas Hospital

McQuiddy, Jana v. Saint Thomas Hospital University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims and Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Law 6-28-2016 McQuiddy, Jana v.

More information

The Non-Lawyers Guide to Hearings before the State Engineer

The Non-Lawyers Guide to Hearings before the State Engineer The Non-Lawyers Guide to Hearings before the State Engineer The information provided here contains general information about how to represent yourself in a hearing. This information is to help you prepare

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION 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 )

More information

Georgia State Board of Workers Compensation. 270 Peachtree Street, NW. Atlanta, GA 30303-1299. Frank R. McKay, Chairman

Georgia State Board of Workers Compensation. 270 Peachtree Street, NW. Atlanta, GA 30303-1299. Frank R. McKay, Chairman Georgia State Board of Workers Compensation 270 Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, GA 30303-1299 Frank R. McKay, Chairman Established in 1920 by the Georgia legislature, the State Board of Workers' Compensation

More information

S15F1254. McLENDON v. McLENDON. Following the trial court s denial of her motion for a new trial regarding

S15F1254. McLENDON v. McLENDON. Following the trial court s denial of her motion for a new trial regarding 297 Ga. 779 FINAL COPY S15F1254. McLENDON v. McLENDON. MELTON, Justice. Following the trial court s denial of her motion for a new trial regarding her divorce from Jason McLendon (Husband), Amanda McLendon

More information

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 15 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 15 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 15 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 26th day of February, 2008, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2007-CC-1091 FREY PLUMBING

More information

No. 1-09-0991WC IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION DIVISION

No. 1-09-0991WC IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION DIVISION NOTICE Decision filed 06/15/10. 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. Workers' Compensation Commission Division

More information

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT. Workers Compensation Commission Division A.D., 2009

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT. Workers Compensation Commission Division A.D., 2009 Filed 12/23/09 No. 4--09--0144WC IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT Workers Compensation Commission Division A.D., 2009 GREENE WELDING AND HARDWARE, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of

More information

2014 PA Super 136. Appellants, Jack C. Catania, Jr. and Deborah Ann Catania, appeal from

2014 PA Super 136. Appellants, Jack C. Catania, Jr. and Deborah Ann Catania, appeal from 2014 PA Super 136 ERIE INSURANCE GROUP, v. JACK C. CATANIA, JR. AND DEBORAH ANN CATANIA, Appellee Appellants IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1057 WDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment Entered June

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION EVANGELINA GRAJEDA ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,013,096 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES ) Respondent ) AND ) ) BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE

More information

WORKERS' COMPENSATION NEWSLETTER

WORKERS' COMPENSATION NEWSLETTER PHONE: 770-612-9200 FAX: 770-612-9201 WWW.SCRUDDERBASS.COM WORKERS' COMPENSATION NEWSLETTER 2015 Issue No. 64 COMBINED SEASON ISSUE * * * * * * Deal, with these changes being effective as of July 1, 2015.

More information

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Department of Employment Services

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Department of Employment Services GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Department of Employment Services VINCENT C. GRAY MAYOR LISA MARÍA MALLORY DIRECTOR COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD CRB No. 13-011 JOHN KING, Claimant Petitioner, V. JOHN

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F910691. TERRY FOSTER, Employee. TYSON SALES & DISTRIBUTION, Self-Insured Employer

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F910691. TERRY FOSTER, Employee. TYSON SALES & DISTRIBUTION, Self-Insured Employer BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F910691 TERRY FOSTER, Employee TYSON SALES & DISTRIBUTION, Self-Insured Employer CLAIMANT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 20, 2013 Hearing

More information

906 Olive Street, Suite 420 St. Louis, MO 63101 314.241.2481 www.askarcher.com 1

906 Olive Street, Suite 420 St. Louis, MO 63101 314.241.2481 www.askarcher.com 1 A Word on MO Comp Subrogation First the Statute: By: Christopher T Archer, 2012 287.150. Subrogation 1. Where a third person is liable to the employee or to the dependents, for the injury or death, the

More information

NOTE: THIS IS A SECOND CORRECTED OPINION/ORDER. THE BOLDED CORRECTION IS AN ADDITION TO FOOTNOTE #1.

NOTE: THIS IS A SECOND CORRECTED OPINION/ORDER. THE BOLDED CORRECTION IS AN ADDITION TO FOOTNOTE #1. NOTE: THIS IS A SECOND CORRECTED OPINION/ORDER. THE BOLDED CORRECTION IS AN ADDITION TO FOOTNOTE #1. BRUCE M. MCDANIEL, PLAINTIFF, 2001ACO # 27 S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKER'S COMPENSATION APPELLATE

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Workers Compensation Board

Commonwealth of Kentucky Workers Compensation Board Commonwealth of Kentucky Workers Compensation Board OPINION ENTERED: June 6, 2014 CLAIM NOS. 201300659 & 201300144 ATWOOD T. DEZARN PETITIONER/CROSS-RESPONDENT VS. APPEAL FROM HON. JEANIE OWEN MILLER,

More information

S12F0889. JARVIS v. JARVIS. This is a domestic relations case in which the application to appeal was

S12F0889. JARVIS v. JARVIS. This is a domestic relations case in which the application to appeal was In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: October 29, 2012 S12F0889. JARVIS v. JARVIS BENHAM, Justice. This is a domestic relations case in which the application to appeal was granted pursuant to Rule 34

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Pravco, Inc. and New Jersey : Manufacturers Insurance Company, : Petitioners : : v. : No. 197 C.D. 2015 : SUBMITTED: September 18, 2015 Workers Compensation Appeal

More information

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion)

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) SIMMONS V. PRECAST HAULERS NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT

More information

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the ****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal

More information

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS 2014 UT App 278 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS JANENE GOURLEY, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES, WORKFORCE APPEALS BOARD, Respondent. Memorandum Decision No. 20130145-CA Filed November 28, 2014

More information

1 WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD. 4 Case No. ADJ589625 (ANA 0373659)

1 WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD. 4 Case No. ADJ589625 (ANA 0373659) 1 WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 Case No. ADJ589625 (ANA 0373659) LONNIE SHELTON, 5 OPINION AND ORDER 6 Applicant, GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER 7 vs. RECONSIDERATION

More information

SUBCHAPTER 10L INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION FORMS SECTION.0100 WORKERS COMPENS ATION FORMS

SUBCHAPTER 10L INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION FORMS SECTION.0100 WORKERS COMPENS ATION FORMS SUBCHAPTER 10L INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION FORMS SECTION.0100 WORKERS COMPENS ATION FORMS 04 NCAC 10L.0101 FORM 21 AGREEMENT FOR COMPENSATION FOR DISABILITY (a) (Effective until July 1, 2015) The parties to

More information

NO. COA10-193 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 2 November 2010. Appeal by Respondents from orders entered 14 September 2009 by

NO. COA10-193 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 2 November 2010. Appeal by Respondents from orders entered 14 September 2009 by NO. COA10-193 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 2 November 2010 CARL B. KINGSTON, Petitioner, v. Rockingham County No. 09 CVS 1286 LYON CONSTRUCTION, INC., and PMA INSURANCE GROUP, Respondents. Appeal

More information

INNS OF COURT CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA APRIL 8, 2010 RONALD R. TWEEL MICHIE HAMLETT LOWRY RASMUSSEN AND TWEEL, PLLC

INNS OF COURT CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA APRIL 8, 2010 RONALD R. TWEEL MICHIE HAMLETT LOWRY RASMUSSEN AND TWEEL, PLLC INNS OF COURT CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA APRIL 8, 2010 RONALD R. TWEEL MICHIE HAMLETT LOWRY RASMUSSEN AND TWEEL, PLLC THE INTERSECTION OF PERSONAL INJURY AND EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AWARDS: WHAT IS IT AND

More information

General Information on Representing Yourself in a Workers Compensation Case

General Information on Representing Yourself in a Workers Compensation Case 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

More information

IN COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION DATED AND FILED February 24, 2015. Appeal No. 2014AP657 DISTRICT I HUPY & ABRAHAM, S.C.,

IN COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION DATED AND FILED February 24, 2015. Appeal No. 2014AP657 DISTRICT I HUPY & ABRAHAM, S.C., COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 24, 2015 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear

More information

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Department of Employment Services Labor Standards Bureau. CRB No. 05-205 JOSEPH MURRAY, Claimant - Petitioner

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Department of Employment Services Labor Standards Bureau. CRB No. 05-205 JOSEPH MURRAY, Claimant - Petitioner 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

More information

NO. COA12-641 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 15 January 2013. v. Forsyth County No. 10 CRS 057199 KELVIN DEON WILSON

NO. COA12-641 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 15 January 2013. v. Forsyth County No. 10 CRS 057199 KELVIN DEON WILSON NO. COA12-641 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 January 2013 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Forsyth County No. 10 CRS 057199 KELVIN DEON WILSON 1. Appeal and Error notice of appeal timeliness between

More information

How To Decide A Dui 2Nd Offense In Kentucky

How To Decide A Dui 2Nd Offense In Kentucky RENDERED: JULY 8, 2011; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2009-CA-000873-DG COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLANT ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM CHRISTIAN CIRCUIT

More information

WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD Case No. App. Div. 13-0040 Decision No. 14-29. BRUCE OLESON (Appellant) v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER (Appellee)

WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD Case No. App. Div. 13-0040 Decision No. 14-29. BRUCE OLESON (Appellant) v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER (Appellee) STATE OF MAINE APPELLATE DIVISION WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD Case No. App. Div. 13-0040 Decision No. 14-29 BRUCE OLESON (Appellant) v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER (Appellee) and SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE FARM MUTUAL, ) AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ) COMPANY (as subrogee of Tera ) & Nanette Robinson), ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A.

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION ABEL ZEPEDA ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 264,962 BILL DAVIS ROOFING and ) ADAME AND ASSOCIATES OF KC, LLP ) Respondents ) AND

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION MONICA HERNANDEZ ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,045,669 THE HAMM COMPANIES ) Respondent ) ) AND ) ) NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO.: 2014-CV-000079-A-O Lower Case No.: 2012-SC-002127-O Appellant, v.

More information

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia FIRST DIVISION DOYLE, C. J., PHIPPS, P. J., and BOGGS, J. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely

More information

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia SECOND DIVISION BARNES, P. J., MILLER and RAY, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.

More information

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 03-CV-1445. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CA-3748-02)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 03-CV-1445. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CA-3748-02) Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections

More information

F I L E D August 9, 2011

F I L E D August 9, 2011 Case: 10-30886 Document: 00511566112 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D August 9, 2011 Lyle

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G204960 LASHAREN MARTIN, EMPLOYEE OPINION FILED JANUARY 27, 2014

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G204960 LASHAREN MARTIN, EMPLOYEE OPINION FILED JANUARY 27, 2014 BEFORE THE RKNSS WORKERS' COMPENSTION COMMISSION WCC NO. G204960 LSHREN MRTIN, EMPLOYEE COPELNDS TEXRKN. LLC, EMPLOYER MRKEL INSURNCE CO./ FIRSTCOMP UNDERWRITER S GROUP INSURNCE CRRIER/TP CLIMNT RESPONDENT

More information

No. 99-C-2573 LEE CARRIER AND HIS WIFE MARY BETH CARRIER. Versus RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

No. 99-C-2573 LEE CARRIER AND HIS WIFE MARY BETH CARRIER. Versus RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY Ed. Note: Opinion Rendered April 11, 2000 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 99-C-2573 LEE CARRIER AND HIS WIFE MARY BETH CARRIER Versus RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL,

More information

S12F1507. RYMUZA v. RYMUZA. On January 13, 2012, the trial court entered a final judgment in the divorce

S12F1507. RYMUZA v. RYMUZA. On January 13, 2012, the trial court entered a final judgment in the divorce In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: November 19, 2012 S12F1507. RYMUZA v. RYMUZA. NAHMIAS, Justice. On January 13, 2012, the trial court entered a final judgment in the divorce action filed by appellee

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: SCOTT E. YAHNE Efron Efron & Yahne, P.C. Hammond, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: ROBERT F. PETERS BROOKE S. SHREVE Lucas Holcomb & Medrea, LLP Merrillville, Indiana

More information

Illinois Official Reports

Illinois Official Reports 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,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: TODD I. GLASS Fine & Hatfield Evansville, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: MARK F. WARZECHA DAVID E. GRAY Bowers Harrison, LLP Evansville, Indiana IN THE COURT OF

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Safe Auto Insurance Company, : Appellant : : v. : No. 2247 C.D. 2004 : Argued: February 28, 2005 School District of Philadelphia, : Pride Coleman and Helena Coleman

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 150714-U. No. 1-15-0714 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 150714-U. No. 1-15-0714 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 150714-U SIXTH DIVISION September 30, 2015 No. 1-15-0714 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: JANUARY 22, 2010; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2009-CA-000566-MR TOM COX APPELLANT APPEAL FROM LAUREL CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JOHN KNOX MILLS,

More information

Tina Ploof v. Franklin County Sheriff s Department and (August 8, 2014) Trident/Massamont STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Tina Ploof v. Franklin County Sheriff s Department and (August 8, 2014) Trident/Massamont STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Tina Ploof v. Franklin County Sheriff s Department and (August 8, 2014) Trident/Massamont STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Tina Ploof Opinion No. 13-14WC v. By: Phyllis Phillips, Esq. Hearing Officer

More information

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the ****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal

More information

Decided: May 11, 2015. S15A0308. McLEAN v. THE STATE. Peter McLean was tried by a DeKalb County jury and convicted of the

Decided: May 11, 2015. S15A0308. McLEAN v. THE STATE. Peter McLean was tried by a DeKalb County jury and convicted of the In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: May 11, 2015 S15A0308. McLEAN v. THE STATE. BLACKWELL, Justice. Peter McLean was tried by a DeKalb County jury and convicted of the murder of LaTonya Jones, an

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION ATLANTIC CITY DISTRICT

STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION ATLANTIC CITY DISTRICT STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION ATLANTIC CITY DISTRICT CAPE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER : (Jeffrey Davis) Petitioner, : CLAIM PETITION NO. 2012-28812 v. : RESERVED

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION 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

More information

In an effort to provide guidance on the practical applications of the Colorado Workers

In an effort to provide guidance on the practical applications of the Colorado Workers Interpretive Bulletins Director s interpretations of issues impacting the Colorado workers compensation system In an effort to provide guidance on the practical applications of the Colorado Workers Compensation

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION WILLIAM G. GUGENHAN ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 162,711 GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION ) Respondent ) Self-Insured ) AND ) ) WORKERS

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION 2005 WI APP 90 Case No.: 2004AP116 Petition for review filed Complete Title of Case: JOSHUA D. HANSEN, PLAINTIFF, RICHARDSON INDUSTRIES, INC., INVOLUNTARY-PLAINTIFF,

More information

DEPUTY CLERl'; 5TH CIRCUIT ccusi OF APPEAL STATE OF LOUISIANA

DEPUTY CLERl'; 5TH CIRCUIT ccusi OF APPEAL STATE OF LOUISIANA ;:" l i ;..:.- ~- r F ;:- tj ::: i:ec(', ~ DANIEL A. CAMPBELL ZOl3HAY 16 AM II: 04 VERSUS NEW ORLEANS SAINTS AND BERKLEY SPECIALTY DEPUTY CLERl'; 5TH CIRCUIT ccusi OF APPEAL STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 12-CA-886

More information

Knoff v. Joe Knoff Illuminating (July 12, 2005) STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Knoff v. Joe Knoff Illuminating (July 12, 2005) STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Knoff v. Joe Knoff Illuminating (July 12, 2005) STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Joe Knoff ) Opinion No. 39-05WC ) v. ) By: Margaret A. Mangan ) Hearing Officer Joe Knoff Illuminating ) ) For: Patricica

More information