قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / The plaintiff representing has a fool for a client

The plaintiff representing has a fool for a client



In the case of a court, it should be axiomatic that the party seeking relief has sufficient skills to present evidence and recite legal precedents if he or she wishes for a successful outcome. Even if retaining a lawyer does not guarantee a favorable outcome, failure to retain a lawyer will always result in an unfavorable outcome.

I Alvy Childress v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company, NO. 03-19-00284-CV, Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, Austin (August 27, 2020) The ancient maximum that a person representing himself in a court case will almost always lose.

FACTUAL SUMMARY

Alvy Childress claimed that he suffered an occupational injury in 201

5. The Texas Mutual Insurance Company, his workers' compensation company, ruled that a torn tendon in his shoulder was not compensable. A judge in administrative law (ALJ) with the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation (Division), held a disputed trial and agreed with Texas Mutual; her decision was upheld by an appeals panel. Childress, acting as his own lawyer, sought redress and the trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of Texas Mutual.

Childress owns a steel manufacturing and construction company called ACE Fab, and in May 2015 he broke his right biceps tendon while moving an iron beam weighing between 2,000 and 3,000 pounds. Texas Mutual accepted the biceps injuries as compensatory but ruled that a "full thickness of his distal supraspinatus tendon" in his right shoulder was "degenerative in nature and not caused or exacerbated by workplace injury."

In her decision and order, ALJ stated that she had considered Childress' offered "causal links" from several physicians including and also reviewed the opinion of a Texas Mutual expert. The ALJ noted that there was no explanation as to how Childress could continue to work for 3 months after the injury date, or explain convincingly how, if the tears were a pre-existing condition exacerbated by workplace injuries, the condition improved, accelerated, or worsened.

ALJ summarized Childress's medical records as beginning more than three months after the injury date and saying that Childress uses his arm normally – worried about further injuries. She said the first post only diagnosed a non-traumatic fracture of the biceps tendon, stating that Childress' symptoms and pain levels were "mild"; that Childress at that time told medical staff that he had "the whole movement"; and that a study confirmed that his range of motion was "intact in all extremities." ALJ concluded that the damage was not liable for compensation.

Texas Mutual filed a summary judgment request, first arguing that Childress had not specified any claim for relief as his amended petition only addressed claims of negligence and breach of various statutes. and rules, rather than seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Appeals Panel.

The trial court signed a decision granting Texas Mutual's request for summary judgment.

DISCUSSION

The court was kind to a non-lawyer, stating that: “Although it is not entirely clear, it appears that Childress claims that the underlying administrative post was incorrectly excluded from evidence. But Childress failed to file the archive in accordance with the rules "so the court could not consider the record.

Childress' amended petition appears only to assert a claim of negligence and claims that Texas Mutual has knowingly violated the provisions of the insurance. code, work code and administrative code and that Childress thereby suffered from an undertreated, under diagnosed, under documented biceps and shoulder injury that caused the manifestly unfair ALJ's decision and order, Independent injury actual injuries, Physical injury a new injury as a direct result of one or more of the above infringements. In interpreting its submissions liberally and in the interests of justice, the Board of Appeal considered whether Texas Mutual was entitled to a summary judgment confirming the decision of the Board of Appeal and eventually concluded that Texas Mutual was entitled to a summary judgment.

Childress, as a party to the decision, had the burden of proof with a consideration of the evidence that the decision should be set aside. The questions before the court were whether Childress' supraspinatus tears were part of his damages. Texas Mutual & # 39 ;s draft evidence required Childress to provide evidence to disprove the Board of Appeal's decisions on these matters. He did not.

The Court of Appeal found that a party, when faced with a draft proposal for a summary judgment, could not, as a non-variable, evade judgment by simply providing extensive evidence and generally saying that a factual matter has been raised. The non-practitioner bears the burden of submitting a written answer which raises questions which preclude a summary judgment and which points to evidence supporting those questions. If the non-mobile person does not meet that burden, the court is not required to provide the deficiency, but must instead grant the proposal.

Although the Board of Appeal tried to read Childress' submissions freely and patiently, it could not give him so much room to give him a procedural advantage that it would not extend to a party represented by a lawyer.

Childress did not present an understandable argument for the existence of a real question of material facts, nor did he point to evidence or authority to support such an argument. Therefore, the Board of Appeal considered that Childress did not fulfill his burden of explaining to the trial court how his attached evidence raised a factual issue concerning every element that Texas Mutual questioned. Since the trial court did not err in granting Texas Mutual's reasoning on the summary judgment, the Board of Appeal overruled Childr's arguments to the contrary and upheld the Court's decision.

Any non-lawyer who believes he or she can argue for a case without a lawyer should take this case into account. Childress sought compensation to workers for an injury he claimed to have sustained more than three times before seeking medical attention and whose claims in later years were not supported by medical evidence, even medical evidence he presented with his retained experts. He may have had a compensable injury – he will never know – but could not prove the right as a pro plaintiff.


© 2020 – Barry Zalma. He also acts as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance-related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims lawyer and more than 52 years in the insurance industry. He can be found at http://www.zalma.com and zalma@zalma.com.

Mr. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine / ACE Legend Award.

For the past 52 years, Barry Zalma has devoted his life to insurance, insurance claims and the need to defeat insurance fraud. He has created the following library of books and other materials to enable insurers and their claims staff to become professional in insurance claims.

Read posts from Barry Zalma at https://parler.com/profile/Zalma/posts [19659002] Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://studio.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg/videos/upload? filter =% 5B% 5D & sort =% 7B% 22columnType% 22% 3A% 22date% 22% 2C% 22sortOrder% 22% 3A% 22DESCENDING% 22% 7D

Go to the insurance claims library – https://zalma.com / blog / insurance-claims-library / [195659002] Subscribe to email version of ZIFL, it's free! –

https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001Gb86hroKqEYVdo-PWnMUkV7pkuOtkiv6oakpgK33CNlNAYW-WBlLCOZFtgvpSdcL7R-tsWKfMVqG6fEuvmM7Hh7gUEJ7yKOdgHDbGl_cGAU%3D

Read the last two questions by ZIFL here. https://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/

Go to Barry Zalma, Inc. website here https://www.zalma.com/ [19659002] Listen to my podcast, Zalma om försäkring, on:

https://podcasts.google.com/?q=zalma%20on%20insuranceZalma om försäkring –


Source link