Insufficient Conversation Case Summary

_ Good Cause document was very generic and did not clearly explain the good cause reason why the rep payee had submitted late filing of CDR hearing appeal. missing in good cause letter was rep payee was actively pursuing an appeal with section 301 and after further clarification from the office D47 she decided to request a hearing request with good cause.

I received a call from a customer who had dialled the 0345 number to claim benefit instead of dialling the 0800 number. The customer was furious as they had to wait in the queue and were being charged for the call.

contacted insd and reviewed claim handling, insd shared his experience and felt that he needed to rate the service he received based on the overall handling, he felt that the adjuster who inspected the vehicle was wonderful as was the others throughout the process but being a firefighter and being responsible for communicating information and it being logged he was upset that all information regarding the clmt was provided at FNOL and why it was not recorded and communicated was not acceptable. He did not want to wait to get vehicle fixed for fear of rust developing on vehicle and had to pay the $500.00 deductible He indicated we did not contact his witness who was a Pastor and should have been contacted. reviewed file that we did contact the witness who provided the correct tag information and we were able to locate the information for clmt based on that

Additionally, in order for Eliza to demonstrate that there was a causal connection between her complaint and her transfer, she must establish that her supervisor had actual knowledge of her complaints before they there retaliatory decision. Luckie, 389 F.3d 715. In this case, after Eliza filed a complaint with the EEO’s Office, she was confronted in the break room by Lieutenant Morgan. (C.26) During this confrontation, Lieutenant Morgan informed Eliza that she was surprised that Eliza filed a complaint with the EEO’s Office, and reminded her that troopers are evaluated based on how well they respect the chain of command. (C.27) Furthermore, Lieutenant Morgan also informed her that she could withdraw her EEO complaint if she decided to work through her issues. (C. 27) Because Lieutenant Morgan is a high-ranking official in District 18, it can be inferred that because she had knowledge of Eliza’s complaint, that the rest of the ranking officials also knew of her complaint. Therefore, Eliza is able to confirm that the ISP knew that Eliza filed a complaint with the EEO’s Office before they

Diane Pardu has been an employee for Dual Power Solar for 17 years and is was fired at the age of 49. During the 17 years of employment, Diane possessed an annual wage of $51,000, an additional $10,000 for commissions, and health care benefits. Diane performed very well as an employee for Dual Power Solar, as she is very rarely late for her shifts. Although Diane was late on March 18th, she provided a notice, but displaced dishonesty to her sales manager. On April 15th, Diane seems to have been laid off but, Andrew did not provide a proper notice of termination to Diane nor indicated that she has been terminated. Diane has an obligation to mitigate. Diane must try to find another job after being terminated but, Diane failed to search for another job which shows she has failed her obligation to mitigate.

Owner and Operator of BBB Electric, Witness Gustavo Flores claimed that Claimant Jose Valadez is his brother-in-law whom he has helped out by having the claimant come by his shop twice a week in January 2013 to the office to clean and pick-up at the office. He said the claimant has always had financial difficulties. He would give the claimant money for a home to pay for rent and food because he felt sorry for this brother-in-law, Claimant Valadez. In January 2013, Witness Flores said the claimant started coming to his office twice a week and would do some household chores by picking up and arranging things at his office. He said that the work the claimant’s work inside the office was not considered “heavy duty” where the claimant would work between five to eight hours a day.

This is a construction defect case wherein Defendant SMS Construction, LLC (“SMS Construction” or “Defendant”) is attempting to disclaim its duties and obligations as general contractor. SMS has not offered any evidence regarding damages. The Court must exclude all testimony and opinion from Defendant regarding damages. Likewise, Defendant has not offered any evidence that third-party subcontractors and/or Plaintiff James Bannie (“Plaintiff” or “Bannie”) caused or contributed to the damage at the Property; this evidence and testimony must be excluded. The Court must also exclude damage from Mr. Geoffrey Jillson of Guy Engineering because his testimony will be based on hearsay which is inadmissible and he does not qualify as an expert to testify

EREPORT # 18988 stated the following: The incident happened recently, within the last several weeks. The Mother was (+) for barbiturates on her Urine Drug Screen (UDS) when delivering. The child tested positive at birth. However, the mother as a prescription for Fiorocet, a drug prescribed for migraines and tension headaches. The mother presented the bottle and it appeared to be a current prescription form her physician Krista Hodge:(601) 749-3776. SW received a physician referral for a (+) UDS. Per protocol a referral is made to DHS. She was upfront from the beginning and presented her prescription bottle for inspection.

Per work questionnaires (09/2016), the general manager and the supervisor of a fast food place indicated that the claimant was able to perform his duties as assigned, had a good appearance and good personal hygiene, rarely called in sick and was always on time. He was able to perform his job without supervision; he understood instructions and responded well to changes in the work

As per our conversation this morning, regarding the recent Hall Tank inspection, I suggest the following actions for response:

Complainant is a Black male. Complainant contends that he was hired by Respondent Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) as a temporary sheet metal worker in or around September 2010. Complainant asserts that he had previously worked for Respondent MBTA as a temporary sheet metal worker from on or about June 9, 2008 to in or around June 2009. Complainant alleges that he was assigned to work the night shift while S.C. (White) with less seniority was not assigned to work the night shift. Complainant contends that he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment by his supervisor, Respondent Kelly (White), throughout his employment.

Joseph is a 48 year old Latino male who comes into therapy at the suggestion of his wife. He tells you, “I can’t seem to get out of bed in the morning and I don’t see why I should have to”. Joseph has just been laid off from his job of 25 years as an architect. He hurt his back during a fishing trip, and, as a result, had missed a significant amount of work. He tells you “in spite of my excruciating pain, I showed up to work daily and they kept sending me home. They were afraid I would re-injure myself. I didn’t take pain medication because I wanted to work. Then they made up some excuse that my job was phased out and let me go”. During the assessment, you learn that his children are grown up and on their own. He has stopped attending

The reporting party (RP) stated on 3/2/16 resident Peter Lavorgna was transported to his dialysis appointment by CareMore Transportation. The RP stated the transportation company pick up and drop off the resident twice a week. On 3/2/16 the transportation arrived earlier then the schedule time of 5:30PM. By the time the staff placed the resident in his wheelchair and wheeled him to the usual pick up area the transportation was not available. The RP stated the facility was contacted regarding the transportation at which the facility stated it was not their issue it is the transportation company 's issue. The RP contacted the resident 's daughter Jan Fiore (560) 522-9620 who stated it was the facility 's responsibility to secure transportation

RCS receives a signed written request to remove an active Cease and Desist order placed on an account.

First and foremost, it must have a clear recognition that the personal safety protective order will not be ineffective and enforceable for the respondent refuses to accept. If the respondent refuses to accept the habeas corpus, the indemnity may be taken. Sichuan's first personal protection order is made in this case, the respondent refused to accept the habeas corpus and did not answer the phone. Finally, the court placed the habeas corpus on the door and stated in the court's "service receipt" that it had been delivered to the respondent's home and the respondent refused to open the door. Refused to answer the phone. So take a post to serve and take pictures to prove. "If the refusal