Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Today’s cautionary tale comes from my partner Natalie Wolf who sent me a copy of Andres Urdaneta v. Trader Joes, IAB# 1419092 (3/10/15)(ORDER). The matter came to the Board on an opposed request for a continuance being advanced by the employer. And basically here is the rule of law I take from this ruling:
Asleep at the wheel is not a basis for a continuance under IAB Rule 12B.
A few facts: the DCD was noticed in October 2014. There was arguably an issue with the employer not having notified the carrier of the claim. A request for a recorded statement from the claimant was conveyed by the carrier in October 2014. However, defense counsel was not assigned nor was a DME arranged until January 2015. And when the DME was noticed, it was for the claimant to submit for evaluation by a partner of the treating doctor. Thus, a conflict exists and we are back to square one.
Outcome: After the continuance was denied, the claim was picked up (don’t you just love it when that happens?).
Worth noting if you have a client who is slow on the draw in addressing Petitions.
Irreverently yours,
Visit Delaware Detour & Frolic, a law blog by Cassandra Roberts
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site