STENO IS IN THE HOUSE | ||
StenoDrills.com
| Haskins Worker's CompensationBuy steno drill CDs at StenoDrills.com (At this time Claimant's Exhibits Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and Defendant's Exhibit No. 1 were marked for identification.) THE REFEREE: Eugene Haskins versus Anders Trucking. Let's open the record. Let's make a part of the record Claimant's and Defendant's Exhibits 1, the first hearing submissions, Claimant's Exhibit 2, the fee agreement. Any objections to Claimant's Exhibit 3 which is a list of bills? MR. BARNES: No, Your Honor. THE REFEREE: We'll enter it into the record as C3. This is your petition. Will you tell me about this matter. MS. RAMEY: Yes, Your Honor. I am here on behalf of the claimant, Eugene Haskins. He fell off a truck on February 17, 1991. We are seeking compensation for a period of roughly five weeks. This period of disability is from the date of the injury February 17, 1991, to March 25, 1991; and he is seeking his medical fees to be paid. I am understanding that the defendant does not have insurance; is that the case? MR. BARNES: It's my understanding right now that there wasn't insurance. We have to investigate into that a little further to make sure -- there might have been a window of time between insurers -- to see if, in fact, there was or not. THE REFEREE: Is there any dispute that he was an employee of the defendant? MR. BARNES: Yes, there is, Your Honor. THE REFEREE: We'll get to that. Go ahead. MS. RAMEY: Basically, we are seeking the wages for five weeks. It is my understanding that the defendant has paid the claimant $1,000 towards the wages for that period. THE REFEREE: Is that accurate? MR. BARNES: Yes. THE REFEREE: Obviously, that would be less than what he would receive in compensation. MS. RAMEY: Yes. His medical bills total $1447. THE REFEREE: What is the claimant seeking after March 25? Is he completely recovered? MS. RAMEY: Completely recovered. THE REFEREE: So a termination would be appropriate in the event of an award. MS. RAMEY: Yes. THE REFEREE: $1447. What is the total again? MS. RAMEY: $1447 even. THE REFEREE: Anything else you want to tell me? MS. RAMEY: I just received the first hearing submission and the answer today. I see in the defendant's submission that they will provide the statement of wages. THE REFEREE: What did you want to tell me? MR. BARNES: Just basically what is already in the first submission hearing. We don't dispute that an injury might have occurred on February 17, 1991, which is on a Sunday. But we dispute whether the claimant was an employee within the workers' comp act; whether he was within the scope or the course of his employment at the time that the injury occurred on Sunday, February 17, 1991; whether the injuries are the result of an incident which is compensable under the act; and if he is going to be found to be an employee within the meaning of the act, whether he hadn't received payments in lieu of compensation. THE REFEREE: Can you agree with the $1,000 figure, Counsel? MR. BARNES: As far as I understand, that is accurate, yes. THE REFEREE: What did he do for the defendant? MR. BARNES: He drove a truck. The defendant leased trucks out; and on the 17th, he was not to be working that day, but that following Monday morning, he was to be working. From what I understand he, I believe, without the permission of the defendant, took the truck and drove it to someplace at his house or near his house so it would be more convenient for him to go to work on Monday. THE REFEREE: What kind of truck is it? MR. ANDREWS: Eighteen-wheeler. MR. BARNES: It's an eighteen-wheel truck, Your Honor. THE REFEREE: Are you suggesting that the claimant and the defendant had a lease arrangement where the claimant would lease the vehicle? MR. BARNES: Well, the defendant would lease the vehicle with another trucking company who is the carrier, and right now they are not a party to this action at all. THE REFEREE: Does anyone intend to join them? Are they going to be brought in or not? MR. BARNES: Right now I don't know. I couldn't respond to that. The name of the carrier is -- THE REFEREE: When you say “carrier,” you mean truck carrier, not insurance carrier. MR. BARNES: Right, truck carrier. The name of the truck carrier is R. Joff and Sons, Incorporated. THE REFEREE: Who paid the claimant? MR. BARNES: Who paid the claimant the money? The defendant. THE REFEREE: Who told him where to go? MR. BARNES: I'm not certain of that. I don't know. THE REFEREE: Were there any documents between the claimant and the defendant that would establish that the claimant was under contract? MR. BARNES: There was a lease agreement; but again that was between the defendant and the carrier, and I don't have a copy of that right now. THE REFEREE: What was the relationship between the claimant and the carrier? MR. BARNES: I'm not certain of that. THE REFEREE: Was there any relationship at all? MR. BARNES: Well, at this moment, we would be asserting that he would possibly be the employee of the carrier also and not of the defendant. THE REFEREE: What was the relationship between the claimant and the carrier? In other words, was he interviewed by them? Did he take a physical for them? Was he paid anything by them? MR. ANDREWS: He was certified by the company. MR. BARNES: He receive a physical and was certified by the company, Your Honor. THE REFEREE: Well, if you intend to join someone, you should do that as soon as possible. I am seeing more and more of these cases where trucks are leased, and everybody points his finger at everybody else. No one wants to take responsibility, but ultimately someone has to be responsible. Anything else you wanted to tell me today? MS. RAMEY: Yes, Your Honor. When the defendant gave the claimant the $1,000 check, I recently learned that the defendant made him sign a paper of some sorts to get this $100 check. I didn't know whether that was going to be applied or - MR. BARNES: $1,000. MS. RAMEY: The $1,000. I didn't know whether that was going to be applied or if it exists. MR. BARNES: I have to look into that. If I find that, I'll give you a copy of that to you. THE REFEREE: What about what Counsel said about being outside the course of employment because he wasn't supposed to be driving that day and did something on his own? MS. RAMEY: I have no knowledge of that, Your Honor. I have payroll stubs, all from the defendant. THE REFEREE: My question is he said he took the truck on a day he wasn't supposed to be driving. What about that? MS. RAMEY: I have no knowledge of that. MR. HASKINS: When I'm employed, I'm employed seven days a week. We used to take our truck on a Sunday night to leave very early Monday morning. THE REFEREE: This occurred on a Sunday? MR. HASKINS: Yes. THE REFEREE: Is there anything else the parties would like to tell me? MR. BARNES: I have nothing further. MS. RAMEY: Other than we will probably just be going on the medical records that we will get from Dr. Yarth, Dr. David Yarth. THE REFEREE: At the next scheduled hearing, we will take the claimant's testimony; and whatever parties are going to be in, should be in at that point. (At this time the hearing in the above-captioned matter was concluded.) |
|
