PENALTY BENEFITS IN IOWA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CASES

| by

Under Iowa law if the payment of weekly benefits to an injured employee is denied, delayed or terminated, and the employer cannot show a reasonable cause or excuse, then the injured worker is entitled to be awarded penalty benefits.  Penalty benefits are in addition to the benefits that were not properly paid.  The penalty benefits can be up to 50% of the amount of the weekly benefits that were not properly paid.  The exact amount of the penalty benefits is up to the discretion of the work comp judges.

 

Unfortunately, some employers and insurance companies do a very poor job of paying weekly benefits in the correct amount and in a timely manner.

 

Set out below is a modified version of a Post Trial Brief I filed in a case involving very serious injuries and terrible compliance by the insurance company in paying the benefits that were owed.  I have changed the names and dates for privacy purposes.

 

I can usually get an insurance company to do what it is legally required to do.  In this case the insurance company and the adjusting company were having a lot of problems unrelated to the workers’ compensation case and getting the proper benefits paid in a timely fashion was a long battle.  As you can see in the Brief set out below I had documented our complaints very extensively.  We ended up settling this case on very good terms after the trial but before a decision was issued.

 

  1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

 

The Claimant suffered accepted injuries to his right shoulder and neck on November 14, 2013.

 

The combination of the severity of the Claimant’s injuries, his limited education, and his job history of only performing heavy manual labor lead to the conclusion that he is permanently and totally disabled.

 

The Defendants have done a terrible job of paying weekly benefits to the Claimant over the course of this case.  The benefits have been dramatically underpaid and they also have frequently been late.  The Defendants made a “catch up” payment of $15,003.41 and are still approximately $35,000.00 behind in the payments that they owe.  There is no reasonable basis for these past underpaid and late benefits.  The Defendants have not even attempted to offer an explanation.  Accordingly, penalty benefits should be assessed against the Defendants.

 

  1. LIABILITY

 

The Claimant injured his neck and shoulder on November 14, 2013 while installing power cable in Des Moines, Iowa.  (Transcript, pp. 15-16). The Defendants have stipulated that these injuries to the Claimant arose out of and in the course of his employment.

 

  1. EXTENT OF INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY

 

The Claimant is entitled to an award of permanent total disability.  Total disability does not mean a state of absolute helplessness.  Permanent total disability occurs when the injury wholly disables the employee from performing work that the employee’s experience, training, education, intelligence and physical capacities would otherwise permit the employee to perform.  See McSpadden v. Big Ben Coal Co., 288 N.W.2d 181 (Iowa 1980); and Diederich v. Tri-City R. Co., 219 Iowa 587, 258 N.W. 899 (1935).

 

A finding that a claimant could perform some work despite claimant’s physical and educational limitations does not foreclose a finding of permanent total disability.  See Chamberlin v. Ralston Purina, File No. 661698 (App. October 29, 1987); and Eastman v. Westway Trading Corp., II Iowa Industrial Commissioner Report 134 (App. 1982).

 

Iowa also follows the odd-lot doctrine.  An employee is an odd-lot when an injury prevents the worker from obtaining employment in any well-known branch of the labor market.  It is important to note that the odd-lot worker may be able to do some work and continue to receive benefits provided that the work is limited in quality, quantity and dependability so that a reasonably stable market does not exist for the services.  To determine whether an injured employee is an odd-lot, a combination of factors including the worker’s reasonable but unsuccessful effort to find steady employment, vocational or other expert evidence demonstrating suitable work is not available for the worker, the extent of the worker’s physical impairment, age, intelligence, education, qualifications and experience must be reviewed.  If the factors preclude the worker from obtaining regular employment, total industrial disability is found.

 

The odd-lot doctrine also uses a special allocation for the production of evidence.  The employee must make a prima facie showing of coming within the odd-lot category.  Thereafter, the employer must produce evidence that suitable employment exists.  See Guyton v. Irving Jensen Co., 373 N.W.2d 101, 105-106 (Iowa 1985).

 

The Claimant is currently 40 years old.  (Transcript, p. 13).  The Claimant was only able to attend school through the 9th grade and does not have a GED.

 

The Claimant has worked in construction jobs, factory jobs, and some maintenance.  (Transcript, pp.  12-14 and 33-34).  However, for most of his adult life he has worked as a power installer.  (Transcript, pp. 13-14).  As a power installer the Claimant helps to install back up power systems for telecommunication businesses and hospitals.  (Transcript, p. 14). There is a technical aspect to the work, but it is also very physically demanding work.  (Transcript, pp. 15-19).  The cable being installed weighs 3 pounds per foot.  (Transcript, p. 17).  A lot of the installation work is in existing buildings, and requires the Claimant and his co-workers to pull the cable either through ceilings while they are on ladders, or while crawling under floor spaces.  (Transcript, pp. 14-15).

 

The Claimant did suffer a prior work injury to his right shoulder in 2011.  (Claimant Ex. 7, p. 36).  However, after surgery and rehab, the Claimant was able to successfully return to work without any restrictions on January 25, 2012.  (Claimant Ex. 7, p. 45).

 

For the work injury of December 14, 2013 at issue in this case the Claimant underwent neck surgery which consisted of an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at the C4-5 level on July 7, 2014.  (Claimant Ex. 1, p. 6).

 

The Claimant is right handed, and underwent his first right shoulder surgery on November 12, 2014.  This first surgery consisted of an arthroscopy and capsulolabral stabilization, subacromial decompression and distal clavicle excision.  (Claimant’s Ex. 1, pp. 6-7).

 

The Claimant underwent his second right shoulder surgery on August 26, 2015.  This second right shoulder surgery consisted of:

 

  1. Arthroscopic debridement, including synovium, articular cartilage and labrum.
  2. Removal of sutures.
  3. Anteroinferior stabilization.
  4. Subacromial decompression. (Claimant Ex. 1, p. 10).

 

The Claimant also underwent treatment for the chronic pain associated with his injuries.  (Claimant Ex. 10, pp. 53-54).

 

The Claimant also underwent extensive physical therapy and work hardening in an unsuccessful attempt to be able to return to work.  (Claimant Ex. 1, pp. 11-12).

 

As a result of his injuries the Claimant has very limited function and strength in his right arm.  (Transcript, pp. 22-24).  He also has severe pain associated with any use of his right arm.  (Transcript, pp. 22-24).

 

The only impairment rating that the Defendants obtained was a short paragraph from Dr. Apple who performed the shoulder surgeries.  (Defense Ex. G, p. 33).  Dr. Apple gave an impairment rating of 7% of the right upper extremity based on the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 6th Edition (Emphasis added).  Dr. Apple does not cite to any sections of the AMA Guides to explain his reasoning.

 

Dr. Apple last saw the Claimant on February 2, 2016.  At that point Dr. Apple indicated restrictions of:

 

  1. 40 pounds bimanual lifting.
  2. 15 pounds lifting with right arm.
  3. No crawling.
  4. Light overhead work (2.5 pounds).
  5. Limited pushing and pulling favoring a position such that his shoulder is abducted to his side. (Claimant Ex. 9, p. 51).

 

Dr. Apple noted that a functional capacity evaluation had been completed, and that he was waiting to see that to issue his final restrictions.  (Claimant Ex. 9, p. 51).

 

The Defendants Exhibits do indicate that a functional capacity evaluation was performed, and a work capacity overview was issued on January 29, 2016, but it apparently did not make its way to Dr. Apple.  (Defense Ex. H, p. 40).  The defense FCE indicated:

 

 

 

  1. Maximum bilateral lifting of 40 pounds.
  2. Maximum right hand only lift of 15 pounds.
  3. Only occasional reaching overhead.
  4. Only occasional reaching, twisted/pivot. (Defense Ex. H, p. 40).

 

The defense functional capacity evaluation indicated that the Claimant’s work capacity was between the categories of light to medium level.  (Defense Ex. H, p. 40).

 

Dr. Butler provided the neck care.  Dr. Butler did not provide an impairment rating, but did note that the Claimant has chronic neck and shoulder pain that will require continuing pain medication management.  (Claimant Ex. 8, p. 47).

 

Dr. Casper was hired by Claimant’s counsel to perform an evaluation of the Claimant’s impairment and functional ability.  (See Dr. Casper’s report generally at Claimant’s Ex. 1, pp. 1-20.  Dr. Casper’s C.V. is Claimant Ex. 2, pp. 21-24).

 

Dr. Casper concluded that  the Claimant has a combined whole body impairment from his neck and shoulder injuries totaling 36% of the whole person.  (Claimant Ex. 1, p. 17).  Dr. Casper’s conclusion is based on the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th Ed., and her reasoning analysis is set out in detail.  (Claimant Ex. 1, pp. 16-17).

 

Dr. Casper also set out the following work restrictions for the Claimant:

 

 

 

  1. Claimant should limit lifting, pushing, pulling and carrying to 20 pounds rarely from floor to waist level.
  2. He should not lift, push, pull or carry above waist level.
  3. He should not use vibratory power tools.
  4. He should not grip or grasp anything above waist level. (Claimant Ex. 1, p. 17).

 

The Claimant testified that he is unable to function beyond Dr. Casper’s work restrictions.  (Transcript, pp.23-24).  Based on his limited functional abilities the Claimant would not be able to perform any of the jobs that he had held in the past.

 

The Claimant also performed an extensive job search.  (See generally, transcript, pp. 25-30).  The Claimant contacted the Defendant Employer and they were unwilling to provide him a job.  (Transcript, p. 25).  As the Agency stated in Estes v. Exide Technologies, Inc., File No.: 5013809, Appeal Dec., Dec. 12, 2006:

 

“An employer who chooses to preclude an injured worker’s re-entry into its workforce likely demonstrates by its own action that the worker has incurred a substantial loss of earning capacity.  As has previously been explained in numerous decisions of this agency, if the employer in whose employ the disability occurred is unwilling to accommodate the disability, there is no reason to expect some other employer to have more incentive to do so.”

 

The Claimant did apply for many jobs in the power installation business, and with people that he had past good relationships with.  (Transcript, pp. 25-30).

 

The Defendants appeared to be critical of the Claimant’s job search on the grounds that the Claimant clearly was incapable of performing power installation work.  However, the Claimant’s efforts were reasonable.  The same lack of functional ability and restrictions that keep him from being able to do power installation work would prevent him from doing other types of work as well.  The Claimant’s choice to try to contact people that he had a good relationship with and knew how good  the Claimant was at his job presented the best chance to find a job.

 

The Claimant also looked for jobs in the fields of “secondary power” and internet installation which is similar to his work experience, but lighter.  (Transcript, pp. 29-30 and 46-47).

 

Additionally, Claimant did apply to a general employment agency.  (Transcript, pp. 26-27 and 49).  The general employment agency told the Claimant that they would not be able to place him.  (Transcript, p. 27).

 

The Defendants did not offer any evidence to rebut the Claimant’s prima facie showing that he falls within the odd-lot category.

 

The Defendants also seemed to be suggesting that they thought that the Claimant might be understating his functional ability to work.  However, the testimony of both the Claimant, and his wife, was clear that the Claimant was very unhappy not working and staying at home; and that he is very motivated to get back to work and out of the house.  (Transcript, pp.  51-54).

 

Unfortunately, the Claimant is not going to be able to obtain a job in the competitive job market.  No employers want to hire a 40-year-old man with serious injuries that have kept him off work for over three years, very extensive restrictions, limited education, and a job history limited to physical labor.

 

Based on the evidence in this case the Claimant is entitled to an award of permanent total disability under either the traditional analysis or the odd-lot doctrine.

 

  1. UNDERPAYMENT OF PAST BENEFITS

 

Calculating interest in Iowa workers’ compensation cases follows the United States Rule.  This means that any workers’ compensation payments are first allocated towards the interest due.  Any payment which exceeds the interest due is then applied towards the principal.  See Christensen v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 554 N.W. 254, 261-262 (Iowa 1996); Robbennolt v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 555 N.W.2d 229, 234-236 (Iowa 1996); and Meyers v. Holiday Express Corp., 555 N.W.2d 502, 507 (Iowa 1996).

 

All workers’ compensation payments begin to draw interest at the rate of 10% per annum when due.  (See Iowa Code Sections 85.30 and 535.3(1)).  Only after all of the accrued interest has been paid can the Defendants’ payments begin to be applied towards the principal owed on the weekly benefits.

 

From the time of Claimant’s injury on December 14, 2013 and continuing for approximately 27 months up until March 16, 2016 the Defendants substantially underpaid the amount of the weekly benefits.  (See Defense Exs. A, B and C).  On March 2, 2016 counsel were able to reach an agreement that The Claimant’s workers’ compensation rate was actually $900.24, and the Defendants began paying the correct rate on March 16, 2016.  (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 165-166 and Defense Exhibit A).  Nothing prevented the Defendants from calculating and paying the correct weekly rate 27 months earlier.

 

The actual payments that the Defendant made prior to March 16, 2016 were substantially lower than the correct rate.  In one of the many strange actions by the Defendants they also paid The Claimant’s at many different incorrect rates.  As shown in Defense Exhibit A starting at page 4 the Defendants made an initial four week payment on January 15, 2014 of $3,220.08 representing a weekly rate of $805.02.  The Defendants then made one more weekly payment of $805.02.  (Defense Ex. A, p. 4).

 

The Defendants then sharply reduced the rate to $503.92 beginning with the payment of January 28, 2014.  Looking over Defense Exhibit A, you can see that the Defendants variously paid weekly rates of $629.88, $624.88, $648.88.  Starting in January of 2016 the Defendants dropped the weekly payments to $332.78.  It was not until March 16, 2016 that the Defendants began paying the correct rate.

 

Claimant counsel’s letter to defense counsel of August 15, 2016 explains in detail the underpayments that had accrued from December 14, 2013 through December 1, 2015.  (See Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 190-220).  Even though the Defendants had made a payment of $15,003.41 to attempt to correct the past underpayments, the Defendants were still at least $15,000.00 in arrears for the payments due through December 1, 2015. The August 15, 2016 letter stated in part:

 

“I.  PAST UNDERPAYMENTS

 

I am enclosing as Exhibit A copy of the print out of benefits paid by the adjusting company that you sent me on February 25, 2016.

 

Please note that this print out of payments only covers from the December 14, 2013 date of injury through December 1, 2015.  You have not sent me any later payment records.  All of the payments after December 1, 2015 still need to be analyzed.

 

Exhibit A reflects that the Defendants have paid Claimant at a wide variety of rates.  I have broken down all of the payments into subsections A through K.  For each subsection I have calculated the underpayment made each week.  I then multiplied that weekly underpayment by the number of weeks in each subsection.  The total underpayments for all of the subsections in Exhibit A total $26,645.88.

 

III.  INTEREST

 

I am enclosing as Exhibit B a memo explaining the Iowa law on underpayments, and providing a worksheet for calculating the underpayments.  The short version is that calculating the amount of interest that the Defendants owe based on the combination of underpayments and delayed payments is very complicated.

 

The longer version is that the Iowa Workers’ Compensation system uses the “United States Rule.”  This means that weekly payments are first allocated towards any interest due.  Only the amount of payment which exceeds the interest due is applied towards the principal.

 

I am very roughly estimating that the Defendants would have to pay about $4,000.00 in interest, plus $26,645.88 in principal to get themselves up to date just through December 1, 2015.

 

 

  1. ACTUAL PAYMENTS BY THE DEFENDANTS

 

The Defendants only made a payment of $15,003.41 towards the underpayments, this payment was issued on April 6, 2016.  I am sending along as Exhibit C a copy of that payment of $15,003.41.  Obviously, the payment by the adjusting company is only roughly half of what is owed.

 

I have been asking frequently since the $15,003.41 payment was issued for a calculation and explanation of how this amount was calculated, and I still have not received any answer.”  (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 190-220).

 

The Defendants never explained how they calculated that they were only $15,003.41 behind through December 1, 2015.  The Defendants also never attempted to rebut the Claimant’s calculations.

 

The Defendants did not supply the history of the payments made after December 1, 2015 until shortly before the hearing in this case.  (See Defense Exs. A, B and C).  A review of Exhibit A shows that the Defendants did not begin paying the correct amount for weekly benefits until the check issued on March 16, 2016.  A review of Defense Exhibit A shows that there were 53 weeks after December 1, 2015 that were paid at the rate of $648.88.  That is $251.36 less per week than the amount owed of $900.24.  Therefore, the underpayments for those 53 weeks is approximately $13,322.08.

 

Defense Exhibit A also shows the Defendants paid 12 weeks after December 1, 2015 at the rate of only $332.78. Therefore, these 12 weeks were underpaid by $567.46 per week.  The total underpayments for these 12 weeks is approximately $6,809.52.

 

Therefore, the total amount underpaid between December 1, 2015 and March 16, 2016 is approximately $20,013.60.  This amount would go up substantially because of the continuing accruing interest.

 

The total current remaining underpayment owed by the Defendants from December 14, 2013 to March 14, 2016 is in the area of $35,000.00.

 

The Defendants should be ordered to calculate and pay all of the accrued interest and principal on past weekly benefits pursuant to the United States Rule on interest and at the correct rate of $900.24.

 

  1. PENALTY BENEFITS

 

Iowa Code Section 86.13(4)(a) provides as follows:

 

“If a denial, delay in payment, or a termination of benefits occurs without reasonable or probable cause or excuse known to the employer or insurance carrier at the time of the denial, delay in payment, or termination of benefits, the workers’ compensation commissioner shall award benefits in addition to those benefits payable under this chapter. . . up to 50% of the amount of benefits that were denied, delayed, or terminated without reasonable or probable cause or excuse.”

 

As outlined above in Section D the Defendants are still roughly $35,000.00 behind in payments in this case and would be over $50,000.00 in arrears if they had not made the corrective payment of $15,003.41 on April 6, 2016.   (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 190-220). Additionally, as set out above, the payments that the Defendants have made have frequently been late.

 

The Defendants have not offered any cause or excuse for the substantial underpayments in this case and the many delays in payments.  Based just on this evidence the Defendants are clearly liable for penalty benefits.

 

However, the situation is even worse for the Defendants because Claimant’s counsel has made substantial and repeated efforts to get the Defendants to fulfill their obligations.

 

Between May 6, 2015 when Claimant’s counsel first became involved in the case through December 8, 2016, he sent 45 different letters and emails to the Defendants complaining about late checks and requesting corrections.  A list of those communications with citations to the record is set out in Addendum 1 of this Post-Hearing Brief.  Additionally, a review of Defense Exhibit A shows another 23 instances of late payments by the Defendants before the Claimant hired a lawyer.

 

Claimant’s counsel also made extensive efforts to get the Defendants to begin paying the correct weekly rate.  Between June 18, 2015 and the resolution of the weekly rate dispute on March 2, 2016 Claimant’s counsel sent nine letters to the Defendants trying to get them to pay the correct weekly rate.  A list of these communications with citations to the record is set out in Addendum 2 to this Post-Hearing Brief.

 

Once the Defendants finally agreed that the correct weekly rate was actually $900.24  Claimant’s counsel then began making efforts to get the Defendants to issue a payment to correct all of the past underpayments.  As set out in Section D above, even though the Defendants made a payment of $15,003.41 on April 6, 2016 to correct the past underpayments, the Defendants are still approximately $35,000.00 behind in their payments.  Defense counsel wrote seven letters trying to get this huge underpayment corrected between March 2, 2016 and October 21, 2016.  A list of those communications with citations to the record is set out in Addendum 3 to this Post-Hearing Brief.

 

The Claimant and his wife both testified that the underpaid benefits and the frequently late benefits created a tremendous amount of stress in their family.  (Transcript, pp. 30-31 and 52-53).  The Claimant’s wife had to go back to full-time work, and at times they have been forced to borrow money.  (Transcript, pp. 31 and 52-53).

 

The Defendants have egregiously failed to pay the Claimant’s weekly benefits in the correct amount and on a timely basis.  The first payment to the Claimant was low, and the conduct of the Defendants has just gotten worse so that even after a “catch up” payment of $15,003.41 they are still roughly $35,000.00 in arrears.  Therefore, penalty benefits should be awarded based on 50% of all of the weekly benefits that were owed between the injury date of December 14, 2013 and the hearing date of February 24, 2017.  This span of time is 167 weeks.  Therefore, the Defendants should be ordered to pay 83.5 weeks of penalty benefits at the Claimant’s rate of $900.24 which totals $75,170.04.

 

  1. CONCLUSION

 

WHEREFORE, the Claimant requests that the Agency enter an Order providing that:

 

 

  1. The Claimant be awarded permanent total disability benefits.
  2. The Defendants calculate and pay all of the accrued interest and principal on past weekly benefits pursuant to the United States Rule concerning interest at the correct rate of $900.24.
  3. The Defendants pay penalty benefits of 83.5 weeks totaling $75,170.04.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

GILLOON, WRIGHT & HAMEL, P.C.

770 Main Street

Dubuque, IA 52001

Telephone: (563) 556-6433

E-Mail: dhamel@dbqlaw.com

 

By:_____________________________

Dirk J. Hamel   AT0003131

 

ADDENDUM 1

 

COMMUNICATIONS TO DEFENDANTS REQUESTING

CORRECTION OF LATE AND/OR UNDERPAID WEEKLY CHECKS

 

 

 

  • May 6, 2015 letter and email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 57-58).

 

  • May 11, 2015 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 65).

 

  • May 12, 2015 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 64).

 

  • May 14, 2015 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 63).

 

  • May 15, 2015 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 62).

 

  • May 18, 2015 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 61-62).

 

  • May 27, 2015 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 60-61).

 

  • May 28, 2015 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 60).

 

  • May 29, 2015 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 59).

 

  • June 3, 2015 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 59).

 

  • June 8, 2015 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 67).

 

  • June 9, 2015 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 67).

 

  • July 15, 2015 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 81-82).

 

  • July 20, 2015 email to defense counsel and adjuster. (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 80-81).

 

  • August 10, 2015 email to defense counsel and adjuster. (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 86-87).

 

  • August 12, 2015 email to defense counsel and adjuster. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 86).

 

  • October 16, 2015 email to adjuster. (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 88-89).

 

  • October 19, 2015 email to adjuster. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 88).

 

  • October 23, 2015 email to adjuster. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 90).

 

  • October 26, 2015 email to adjuster. (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 94-95).

 

  • October 27, 2015 emails to adjuster. (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 93-94 and 92-93).

 

  • October 28, 2015 email to adjuster. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 91).

 

  • October 29, 2015 email to adjuster. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 91).

 

  • December 15, 2015 email to adjuster. (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 98-99).

 

  • December 18, 2015 email to adjuster. (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 102-103).

 

  • December 21, 2015 emails to adjuster. (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 117-119).

 

  • January 5, 2016 email to adjuster. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 143).

 

  • March 2, 2016 letter and email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 164).

 

  • March 11, 2016 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 167).

 

  • March 15, 2016 email and letter to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 170).

 

  • March 23, 2016 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 173).

 

  • May 24, 2016 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 179).

 

  • May 26, 2016 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 183).

 

  • May 27, 2016 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 183).

 

  • July 1, 2016 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 187).

 

  • August 1, 2016 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 189).

 

  • August 9, 2016 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 223).

 

  • August 11, 2016 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 222).

 

  • August 12, 2016 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 221-222).

 

  • August 16, 2016 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 221).

 

  • October 28, 2016 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 230-231).

 

  • November 16, 2016 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 223).

 

  • November 18, 2016 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 232).

 

  • December 2, 2016 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 235).

 

  • December 8, 2016 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 237).

 

ADDENDUM 2

 

COMMUNICATIONS TO DEFENDANTS REQUESTING

CORRECTION OF INACCURATELY LOW RATE OF WEEKLY COMPENSATION

 

 

 

  • June 18, 2015 letter and email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 69-78).

 

  • July 28, 2015 letter and email to defense counsel and adjuster. (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 83-84).

 

  • October 30, 2015 letter and email to adjuster. (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 96-97).

 

  • December 16, 2015 email to adjuster. (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 100-101).

 

  • December 21, 2015 email to adjuster. (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 121-135).

 

  • January 5, 2016 email to adjuster. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 143).

 

  • January 11, 2016 email to adjuster. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 148).

 

  • January 22, 2016 letter to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 149).

 

  • February 19, 2016 letter and email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 152).

 

ADDENDUM 3

 

COMMUNICATIONS TO DEFENDANTS REQUESTING PAYMENT

TO CORRECT THE PAST UNDERPAYMENTS

 

 

 

  • March 2, 2016 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 165).

 

  • March 23, 2016 email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 173).

 

  • April 11, 2016 letter and email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 176-178).

 

  • May 24, 2016 letter and email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 180-181).

 

  • June 22, 2016 letter and email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 185-186).

 

  • August 15, 2016 letter and email to defense counsel. (Claimant Ex. 11, pp. 190-220).

 

October 21, 2016 letter and email to defense counsel.  (Claimant Ex. 11, p. 229).