Podcasts about facts after

GOOD CAUSE FOR IME ESTABLISHED THE INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION AS A TOOL TO DEFEAT FRAUD In Costa Rwagasore v. Grange Property & Casualty Insurance Co., No. 2022-CA-0413-MR, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (January 27, 2023) the insurer sought an Independent Medical Examination (IME) of the claimant, Rwagasore and the claimant claimed there was no good cause for an IME. FACTS After the insurer sought a medical examination of the claimant. Costa Rwagasore appealed from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court granting the petition of Grange Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Grange) to appear for a medical examination by a physician of its choice as a part of its investigation of Rwagasore's insurance claim. Rwagasore argued that Grange failed to present evidence showing "good cause" in support of its petition as required by the provisions of Kentucky's Motor Vehicle Reparations Act (MVRA), KRS 304.39-010 et seq. KRS 304.39-270(1). On October 19, 2020, Rwagasore was driving in Louisville. While he was stopped at a traffic signal, his vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle that immediately fled the scene. The accident report prepared by an officer of the Jeffersontown Police Department indicated: "no injuries, no pictures taken, and no vehicles were towed." Eleven days later, Rwagasore sought treatment at a medical clinic. He complained of pain in his back, chest, neck, shoulder, left knee, right leg, and right foot. Ultimately, Rwagasore received extensive medical care and treatment from numerous medical providers. Upon evaluating the claim, Grange suspected that the injuries allegedly sustained were not caused by the motor vehicle accident. After it received the results of the peer review of the records, Grange requested that the court order Rwagasore to appear for a medical examination. Grange argued that Rwagasore put his physical condition at issue and that a real dispute surrounded whether the allegedly significant injuries arose from the minor motor vehicle accident. It observed that Rwagasore had an extensive medical history of pre-existing issues with his right knee; that he had been involved in four prior motor vehicle accidents in a short span of time. Following a hearing, the trial court found that Grange had demonstrated good cause to warrant a physical examination pursuant to the statute and ordered the examination. THE APPEAL DISCUSSION --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support

When You Sue & Lose You Can't Sue the Same Defendants Again In DAB Three, LLC, et al. v. Sandra Fitzpatrick, Allen Fischer et al. v. Lawyers Title Corporation et al., No. AC 44393, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (October 18, 2022) the plaintiff attempted to avoid the effect of the doctrine of res judicata. FACTS After a suit to recover damages for fraudulent concealment the trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in the first action and the defendant Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation's motion for summary judgment in the second action and rendered judgments from which the plaintiff Alan Fischer appealed. OPINION Alan Fischer appealed and claimed that the court incorrectly determined that both of his complaints were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The plaintiff was the sole owner, designee, managing partner, and assignee of DAB Three, LLC (DAB Three), and he was the sole person acting through and for DAB Three. In August, 2006, DAB Three sued (the 2006 action) against seven defendants. The gravamen of the 2019 suits is that the defendants are liable for the $2,049,185.62 judgment rendered in the 2006 action because the defendants failed to procure adequate insurance coverage with respect to the property. The plaintiff alleged that, prior to and throughout the 2006 action, the defendants intentionally misrepresented and fraudulently concealed which of the 2006 defendants was: 1 the broker of the policy, 2 Fitzpatrick's employer, and 3 the party financially liable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants “withheld” the identity of the individual or entity that brokered the policy so as to force DAB Three “to try the case and obtain a judgment in the [2006 action] against a defendant purportedly without assets.” Both of the complaints in the 2019 actions assert three claims: fraudulent concealment pursuant to General Statutes § 52-595, common-law fraud, and violation of Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) The defendants moved for summary judgment in the 2019 actions on at least eight different grounds, including res judicata. The court granted both motions for summary judgment and overruled the plaintiffs objections. DISCUSSION The doctrine of res judicata provides that a valid, final judgment rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is an absolute bar to a subsequent action between the same parties upon the same claim or demand. Res judicata prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits. Moreover, claim preclusion prevents the pursuit of any claims relating to the cause of action which were actually made or might have been made. Res judicata is based on the public policy that a party should not be able to relitigate a matter which it already has had an opportunity to litigate. In order for res judicata to apply, four elements must be met: 1 the judgment must have been rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; 2 the parties to the prior and subsequent actions must be the same or in privity; 3 there must have been an adequate opportunity to litigate the matter fully; and 4 the same underlying claim must be at issue. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma/support

My story @darknetdiaries VS. THE FACTS After 1 year and a half of the episode. PART 1 https://albertohill.com https://twitter.com/ADanielHill https://albertohill.com/2020/04/12/my-story-darknetdiaries/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/darkwebtoday/message

Tonight I am joined by Roddy Russell Jr who does an amazing job with Facts After the Match on the NYCFC SubReddit and he now also does it for our NYCFC Nation Blog! Wooooooo! We get Roddy's opinion on the 4-1 victory against Chicago Fire. We go through his Facts after the match post and praise Khiry Shelton's amazing form. We wrap up the episode discussing the upcoming game against the Houston Dynamo. He's also a fan of pepperoni pizza so if you see him, buy him a slice!   S2E28 Show link: http://nycfcpodcast.com/facts-match-new-york-city-fc-4-vs-chicago-fire-1-9-26-2016     Not to be outdone, vote @Stiven20Mendoza for @MLS Goal of the Week as well! https://t.co/e6yRQq6Uam https://t.co/BYLA8amD2v — New York City FC (@NYCFC) September 26, 2016   Don't forget to: Follow Roddy on Twitter @rrusselljr93 Read: Facts After the Match - http://thenycfcnation.sportsblog.com/posts/26223824/facts-after-the-match--nycvchi.html Leave NYCFC Fan Podcast a voice message at NYCFCPodcast.com/chat. It'll be played on the next episode! Email the podcast any questions you may have to info@nycfcpodcast.com If you enjoyed this podcast please share it with our NYCFC Family by leaving an honest rating and review on iTunes. Leaving a 5 star rating and review will help other NYCFC fans find this podcast! Thank you! Subscribe to the NYCFC Fan Podcast on iTunes and Stitcher:   Follow NYCFC Fan Podcast on:

What a game! What a way to clinch the playoffs this weekend! NYCFCFan joins the podcast this Sunday morning to discuss the win and recap the match. We touch upon Mendoza's injury and what we expect to happen moving forward with the final 3 matches of our season. S2E27 Show link: http://nycfcpodcast.com/new-york-city-4-vs-chicago-fire-1-recap-nycfc-fan Big win for NYCFC tonight. @rrusselljr93 gives you his Facts After the Match. https://t.co/hCLeez1bpf — NYCFC Nation (@NYCFCNation) September 24, 2016 Don't forget to: Follow NYCFCFan on Twitter @NYCFCfan NYCFC extinguish Fire at home - http://sb.gg/1m1gr Leave NYCFC Fan Podcast a voice message at NYCFCPodcast.com/chat. It'll be played on the next episode! Email the podcast any questions you may have to info@nycfcpodcast.com If you enjoyed this podcast please share it with our NYCFC Family by leaving an honest rating and review on iTunes. Leaving a 5 star rating and review will help other NYCFC fans find this podcast! Thank you! Subscribe to the NYCFC Fan Podcast on iTunes and Stitcher:   Follow NYCFC Fan Podcast on:

People v. Burns, 2016 IL 118973 (March). Episode 154 (Duration 4:58) The “no-nights visits” rule is affirmed, can’t bring the sniffer dog to your front step for a little sniff action. Facts After receiving a tip that Defendant is selling wee from her apartment, the police bring a dog to her apartment door. The dog alerts […] The post Affirmed: Can’t Bring A Drug Dog To Your Front Door For Some Sniffer Action first appeared on IllinoisCaseLaw.com.