1 In the case of Jesse Maxwell v. AIG Domestic Claims, Inc. the final verdict was justifiable due to the nature of how Mr. Maxwell was treated. The premise of the case of insurance fraud claims by AIG was provoke due to inadequate evidence from an AIG private investigator. The reason the case pushed for so long was the mental status of Mr. Maxwell who was a former hard-working employee of Bay State Paper Company. Mr. Maxwell on October 8, 2000, suffered an on the job injury that results in workers compensation claim for injury. During the time of injury, Mr. Maxwell was unable to work and collected income from the claim. The defendant Mr. Maxwell wanted to work and had a loyal history of working on time at The Bay State Paper Company. One of the issues of the case stated by AIG was that Mr. Maxwell was working during his time of collection and was receiving an income from janitorial …show more content…
Maxwell on personal dislike seem to be personal. The enforcement on Mr. Maxwell was too harsh from criminal checks to a private investigator following a man who was living in a shelter. Mr. Maxwell was not living a lavish lifestyle or buying the excessive thing he was just trying to get some compensation due to the pain caused from work injury at the Bay State Paper Company. AIG could have dig deeper into the working allegation to see if Mr. Maxwell was receiving financial support from doing janitorial work. AIG treat Mr. Maxwell with no respect or sympathy for being homeless or suffering mental issue from the long drawn out case. The result of the case provides how unethical the defense team was towards Mr. Maxell with wanting criminal charges after knowing Mr. Maxwell was not being paid at all for his services. The Bay State Paper Company should have compensated Mr. Maxwell based on the injury location at their
Title of Case: Lau v. Nichols: 414 US 563 (1974) Plaintiff: Kinney Kinmon Lau Defendant: Alan Nichols, San Francisco Unified School District Setting: San Francisco, CA Major Issues Raised/ What is the case about? This case examines the responsibility that a school district has to establish a program that deals with the various language issues of non-English speaking students.
The case of Tammy Lou Fontenot v. Taser International, Inc. was about a wrongful death case named Darryl Tuner, a 17-year-old male employed by a grocery store. Darryl was fired for “insubordination” and refused to leave the grocery store. Police were called, and eventually used a Taser in order to take him into custody. Turner died as a result of the Taser being delivered to Turner’s body. Tammy Lou Fontenot filed suit against the City of Charlotte and Taser International seeking money damages for the alleged wrongful death of Darryl Turner.
The complaint sought damages for civil theft, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, conversion, conspiracy to commit conversion, constructive trust, unjust enrichment, fraudulent transfer, conspiracy to effect a fraudulent transfer, and equitable lien (FindLaw's). Once the criminal charges were resolved, Therma Builders moved for summary judgment in the civil action, contending that Peterson was stalling her liability to Therma Builders in the civil action. Then on November 1, 2005 the trail court granted final summary judgement in favor of Therma Builders in the civil action. Peterson appeals this final summary judgement, challenging both the finding of liability and the amount of damages awarded. The final summary judgment contains no findings as to the amount of damages for which Peterson is civilly liable to Therma Builders.
Citation: Morgan v Sate, 537 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 1989) Facts: James A. Morgan, the appellant, who at sixteen was diagnosed as organically brain-damaged and brain-impaired, murdered the elderly woman with whom he was employed to perform manual labor. Morgan is described as a teenage alcoholic, who since the age of four sniffed gasoline on a regular basis.
The employees were sanctioned for the underlying charges and the charge of giving the false statements. Holding of the Court: The court ruled in favor of La Chance because agencies
The courts decided in favor of Simpson, stating he was deemed an employee per the economic realities test. EY was forced to pay Simpson damages for violating the ADEA. Judge Daughtrey wrote a concurring opinion at the end of the court document. Judge Daughtrey states that statutory modifications need to occur to redefine the class of individuals who are protected
Before the Garner case there were four rules that dictated lawful deadly force by an officer on a suspect. The Any Felony Rule, The Defense of Life Rule, The Model Penal Code, The Forcible Felony Rule. The Any Felony Rule gave officers the authorization to use any and all means necessary to arrest a felon suspect or prevent them from fleeing. It was interpreted as giving law enforcement the legal permission to shoot an unarmed fleeing felony suspect. The defense of life rule states that police officers can use deadly force only in situations were their own lives or the life of another person are in danger.
In determining whether a genuine issue of the material fact whether a genuine issue of material fact occurs regarding the reasonableness of the requested accommodation, we first examine whether Turners facial presenting that her proposed accommodation is possible. If appellant has made out a prima facie showing, the load then shifts to prove a favorable defense, that the accommodations requested by Turner are unreasonable or would cause an undue hardship on the employer. In contrast, If Turner has satisfied her initial burden, Turners proposed accommodation seems practical. At this time, Hershey rotations policy is new one which had never been required of employees in Turners position. If Turner 's proposed accommodation would permit the new rotation program to endure, even though on a modified basis.
Your honor, I am Micha Schiebe [defendant] for my company, TGI Friday’s. This is court case number 2590-11-2 Bernard v. Carlson Companies TGIF and Indemnity Insurance Company of North America. This case took place on January 4,2010. On January 4, 2010, Michael Bernard had the opportunity to sample a new item on the menu at TGI Friday’s, his place of employment.
Operating with a team of over 18 highly experienced lawyers, he deals with all manner of cases of malpractice relating to accidents and injuries including medical malpractices, construction site accidents, pedestrian and vehicle accidents among others. He is licensed to practice in both Chicago and Florida. He now has more than 75 employees and has grown to become one of the most recognized injury attorneys in the United States. His love for justice and fairness has made him and his team to begin representing the people who have been wrongfully convicted
Before the original case started the petitioner and dentist, Charles Thomas Sell, whom had a prior history of mental illness was charged with submitting false insurance claims to receive payments on May 16, 1997. The government then issued a motion for a psychiatric examination of Mr. Sells to determine whether or not he was competent to stand trial. After the evaluation Mr. Sell was ruled to be competent to stand trial but determined that Sells might have a psychotic episode in the future. On November 1997, an indictment was issued to charge Charles Sell and his partner with multiple counts of mail fraud, Medicaid fraud, and money laundering. Approximately six months later Charles Sells and his wife were indicted once more with intimidating
In terms or conditions of employment, disparate treatment occurs when an employee is intentionally treated differently by the employer due to race, color, religion, gender or national origin. Likewise, disparate impact is the discriminatory effect of apparently neutral employment criteria or selection devices. Further, disparate impact does not require intention to discriminate on the part of the employer. This type of impact disproportionately disqualifies employees based on race, color, sex, religion or national origin. The issue that surrounds the Griggs v. Duke Power Co is whether or not there’s a violation of Title VII.
Forrester’s injuries to her left leg and head, she has been unable to return to work since the February 26, 2014 accident involving Richard Hart. Mrs. Forrester’s lost wages are $ 74,997 and she was earning $ 100,000 annually plus medical and dental benefits when the accident occurred. Per her doctors, she is not expected to return to any type of employment for another year minimum. Mrs. Forrester was placed on FMLA for the first 12 weeks of her injury but since has been terminated from her position and has a future loss of earnings capacity claim and a loss of benefits claim that will be vigorously pursued at trial. The current estimated loss value of her earning capacity combined is $100,000.
The case I will be concentrating on is Tomcik vs. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation and Correction in which Tomcik was imprisoned under the custody of Department of Rehabilitation and correction, based on the Legal and Ethical Issues for Health Professionals book. The problem stimulated from continuous negligence from nurses and doctors at the department, which initially was when Tomcik received a physical evaluation, included the breast examination by Dr. Evans who stated that the examination was cursory and lasted only a few seconds, which means that not much attention was presented regarding the patient and his job. The next day Tomcik noticed a lump as being about the size of a pea in her right breast, however it was not reported by Dr. Evans.
Tice, 33 Cal. 2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948) FACTS: Plaintiff Summers's action was against defendants Tice and Simonson for an injury to his eye and face as the result of being struck by shotgun discharge on November 20, 1945 while plaintiff and the two defendants were hunting quail. At bench trial, the court found that as a direct result of the shooting by defendants, the shots struck plaintiff and that defendants were negligent. The plaintiff was not contributorily negligent. The defendants argued that they were not joint tortfeasors, and thus not jointly and severally liable, as they were not acting in concert, and that there was not sufficient evidence indicating which defendant was responsible for the the injuries.