◊ALL FILES WILL HAVE TO BE OPENED IN A pdf APPLICATION
~OCTOBER 4, 2006
(8.2 MB)
~OCTOBER 10, 2006
(848 KB)
~SEPTEMBER 10, 2007
(4.7 MB)
~NOVEMBER 3, 2007
(44 KB)
( 26.9 MB )
(21.2 MB)
POINT OF ORDER ONE and TWO
(1.7 MB)
", Hollie Rutkowski Esq; December 31, 2004 Letter:
cc: David A Bell
Melissa Brown, Esq
Baynard Chang, M.D.
Agraquest, Inc.
Daniel N. Reich, Esq.
Lynne Rendon, Liberty Mutual
cc: David A Bell
Melissa Brown, Esq
Baynard Chang, M.D.
Agraquest, Inc.
Daniel N. Reich, Esq.
Lynne Rendon, Liberty Mutual
POINT OF ORDER THREE
EXHIBIT 1 (with proof of service) - *10-3-2003 DAVID BELL WORKER COMPENSATION CLAIM
EXHIBIT 1 (without proof of service) - *10-3-2003 DAVID BELL WORKER COMPENSATION CLAIM
POINT OF ORDER FOUR
EXHIBIT 2 *10-23-2003 PREFERRED INSURANCE DENIAL OF CLAIM
POINT OF ORDER FIVE
EXHIBIT 3 *2-5-2004 PREFERRED INSURANCE DENIAL OF CLAIM
POINT OF ORDER SEVEN
EXHIBIT 4 *5-19-2004 WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE RATING BUREAU
POINT OF ORDER EIGHT
EXHIBIT 5 *7-14-2004 GOLDEN EAGLE/LIBERY MUTUAL DENIAL OF CLAIM
POINT OF ORDER THIRTEEN
EXHIBIT 6 - *3-2-2005 QME DR. NG page 23 of 27
EXHIBIT 6 - *3-2-2005 QME DR.NG page 24 of 27
POINT OF ORDER NINETEEN
EXHIBIT 7 - *11-1-2007 DECLARATION OF SANDRA L. TREND
EXHIBIT 8 - *10-31-2007 HUNTINGTON SQUARE MEMO
POINT OF ORDER TWENTY ONE
EXHIBIT 9 - *4-21-2005 DANIEL REICH REQUEST FOR SSA RECORDS
EXHIBIT 10 - *5-3-2005 DANIEL REICH REQUEST FOR SSA RECORDS
POINT OF ORDER TWENTY TWO
EXHIBIT 11 - *2004 ADJUDICATION OF CLAIM
EXHIBIT 12 - *2005 AMENDED [LIBERTY MUTUAL] ADJUDICATION OF CLAIM
POINT OF ORDER TWENTY FOUR
EXHIBIT 13 - *9-20-2006 DAVID BELL CONSENT FOR RELEASE OF SSA RECORDS
POINT OF ORDER TWENTY SIX
EXHIBIT 14 - *8-8-06 DANIEL REICH LETTER
POINT OF ORDER THIRTY FOUR
EXHIBIT 15 - *2-19-1999 SACRAMENTO ENT, NANCY APPLEBLATT FAX TO AGRAQUEST "can return to work"
POINT OF ORDER THIRTY SEVEN
EXHIBIT 16 - *7-29-2006 DAVID BELL LETTER
POINT OF ORDER THIRTY SEVEN
EXHIBIT 17 - 10-20-2006 WCAB MINUTE OF HEARING
POINT OF ORDER THIRTY SEVEN
EXHIBIT 18, page 1 - *8-15-2007 LAW OFFICES of OVERTON & OVERTON LETTER
EXHIBIT 18, page 2 - *8-15-2007 LAW OFFICES of OVERTON & OVERTON LETTER
EXHIBIT 18, page 3 - 8-15-2007 LAW OFFICES of OVERTON & OVERTON LETTER
POINT OF ORDER FORTY
EXHIBIT 19 - *11-14-2006 Daniel Reich letter
POINT OF ORDER FORTY
EXHIBIT 20, page 1 - UNITED STATES PATENT # 6.004.774
EXHIBIT 20, page 2 - UNITED STATES PATENT # 6.004.774
POINT OF ORDER FORTY
EXHIBIT 21 - *BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA OF UNITED STATES PATENT # 6.004.774
POINT OF ORDER FORTY
EXHIBIT 22 - *UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE PATENT ASSIGNMENT ABSTRACT OF TITLE OF UNITED STATES PATENT # 6.004.774
POINT OF ORDER FORTY
EXHIBIT 23 - *3-2-2005 QME DR. NG REPORT (page 22)
POINT OF ORDER FORTY ONE
EXHIBIT 24 - *10-20-2006 SUPPLEMENT TO MINUTES OF HEARING
POINT OF ORDER FORTY TWO
EXHIBIT 25, page 1 - *10-10-2006 DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
EXHIBIT 25, page 2 - *10-10-2006 DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
EXHIBIT 25, page 3 - *10-10-2006 DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
POINT OF ORDER FORTY TWO
EXHIBIT 26 - *4-27-1999 DAVID BELL LETTER OF RECOMENDATION
POINT OF ORDER FORTY TWO
EXHIBIT 27 - *STATE of CALIFORNIA, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH CAL/OSHA CITATION AND NOTIFICATION OF PENALTY
POINT OF ORDER FORTY TWO
MISTAKENLY LEFT OUT OF EXHIBITS
POINT OF ORDER FORTY SIX
EXHIBIT 28 - 5-7-2007 WCAB HEARING
~NOVEMBER 19, 2007
•ANSWER TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - by Daniel N. Reich, ESQ., Agraquest, Inc. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, November 19, 2007
(4.1 MB)
~NOVEMBER 21, 2007
• REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - by Workers" Compensation Administrative Law Judge: Suzanne F. Dugan, November 21, 2007
(44 KB)
~JANUARY 3, 2008
• OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - Workers Compensation Appeals Board, San Francisco, CAby: Frank M. Brass, James C. Cuneo, Rick Dietrick, January 3, 2008
(5.7 MB)
[ Stated on page 9 - of OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION:
"He noted Dr. Hinni's comment on industrial causation, quoted below, and reported that Dr. Marinkovich stated, in a November 15, 2004 report, that he believed applicant's siinusitus and lung disease were related to fungus exposure at work.
However, in his March 24, 2005 supplemental report, Dr. Ng stated that the environmental IgG test relied on by Dr. Marinkovich was "generally not accepted in the medical literature as evidene of fungal infection." (Applicants Exhibit 12, Report of March 24, 2005, p 2)
•On July 7, 2007 in the Superior Court Of The State Of Delaware In And For Sussexx County, Case C.A. No. 97C-10-RFS (CHARLES BRANDT and NANCY BRANDT - Plaintiffs vs. ROKEBY REALTY COMPANY, et al. - Defendants, Defendant's Motions to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Dr Marinkovich was DENIED. The fact is that the expert testimony of Dr. Marinkovih has passed Daubert, esp., relating to Immuglobulin G (IgG) antibody research and medical analysis 14 times out of environmental health related mold and other microbial exposure 17 trials.
••Dr Marinkovich's most recent Daubert hearing was in the Federal District Court in Phoenix, AZ. Environmental Helth Expert and Presenting Expert in a case involving Jack Linquist v. Star Roofing, Douglas R. Haney can attest to this fact, giving that he is intimately involved with the late Dr. Marinkovich's research, clinical practice, and this particular litigation matter presently.
~Any reports to the contrary by defendant attorney are fictional at best ["generally not accepted in the medical literature as evidene of fungal infection." (Applicants Exhibit 12, Report of March 24, 2005, p 2)], as Vincent A. Marinkovich, M.D., and his work were brought before the California State Medical Board in 2002, whereupon his work was, and ethics of his medical practice were, given full exoneration.
CASE:
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR SUSSEX ...
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. IN AND FOR SUSSEX COUNTY. CHARLES BRANDT and NANCY. ) BRANDT,. ) ) Plaintiffs,. ) ) C.A. No. 97C-10-132- RFS ...
caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/delawarestatecases/superior_7_2006/97c-10-132. pdf
~JANUARY 23, 2008
(6.7 MB) filed by David Bell due to:
• Significant Appeals Board errors and ommissions that have a direct bearing on the decisions rendered by the Appeals Board.
•The motion also addresses concerns that the Appeals Board failed to act upon in regard to violation of law that have impeded Applicant's due process, discovery and recovery, Civil Rights, and right to a fair and impartial due process of law (under the 14th Amendment, Section 1, of the United States Constitution),
•"No State shall make or enforce any law thich shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United Stats; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
~MARCH 4, 2008
•OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - Workers Comensation Appeals Board, San Francisco, CA by Frank M. Brass, James C. Cuneo, Rick Dietrick, March 4, 2008
(3.2 MB)
•IT SHOULD BE NOTED: David Bell's filing of his 2nd MOTION/PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION was due to the fact that the San Francisco, California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board:
•Failed to take into consideration or even acknowledge the pages of the March 2, 2005 report of Applicant's [David Bell] Qualified Medical Examiner that did indeed indicate industrial causation with respect to Mr. Bell's employment at Agraquest, Inc. In fact, there was never any reference to Dr. Ng being a State of California Qualified Medical Examiner.
•The WCAB had taken out of context the exact wording of Dr. Ng's Medical Report and rearranged it to merely look as if Dr. Ng is concluding that Mr. Bell's 1st of the 4 successive sinus surgeries were due to the fact that Mr. Bell had a history of smoking. Dr. Ng quoted not one, but six published medical findings as to the harmful effects of exposures to Bacillus subtilis.
•The San Francisco, California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board in this March 4, 2008 OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FO RECONSIDERATION states, "Additionally, applicant's petition must be dismissed because it is untimely. Labor Code section 5903 provides that an aggrieved person may petition for reconsideration within 20 days after service of a final order. The time for filing may be extended five days when service of the order was by mail within California." "The period in which to file a petition for reconsideration is mandatory and jurisdictional and cannot be extended" "Petition for reconsideration from final order, decisions or awards issued by the Appeals Board in San Francisco and answers thereto shall be fled at the office of the Appeals Board in San Francisco. Petitions for reconsideration received in any district office or the office of the Appeals Board in San Francisco, except as provided by this rule, shall neither be accepted for filing not deemed filed for any purpose." "In this case, the Appeals Board filed and served its decision by mail on January 3, 2008. The 25-day period for filing a petition for reconsideration at the office of the Appeals Board ended on January 28, 2008. Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration was received at the Board's district on January 23, 2008 The district office forwarded the petition to the Appeals Board, and it was received at the Appeals Board's office in San Francisco on January 30, 2008." Applicant's petition in the present case was untimely, and the Appeals Board has no jurisdiction to rule on it.
•BELL'S 2ND MOTION/PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION "UNTIMELY"?
•Bell's second MOTION/PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION was filed at the Sacramento s district office of Workers Compensation Board 6 days before the 25-day period would have ended.
Giving the benefit of doubt that the Sacramento Workers Compensation Board district office didn't send this Motion/Petition until the next day, Thursday - January 24 the San Francisco Workers' Compensation Appeals Board had ample time to have received this Motion/Petition within 5 days.
••Bell's first MOTION/PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION was filed at the same Sacramento district office of Workers Compensation Board 1 day before the 25-day period would have ended, however, this MOTION/PETITION was accepted and declared "timely" by the Appeals Board.
•Also stated by the San Francisco Appeals Board with reference to Judge Dugan not recusing herself or even letting the applicant, David Bell and/or his attorney know of her prior employment with the law firm, Laughlin, Falbo, Levy, and Moresi.
In Judge Dugan's REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION of November 21, 2007 she states,"Although I worked for Laughlin, Falbo, Levy, and Moresi over a decade ago, that law firm did not represent any party in this trial. I have no personal bias about the parties or of the case."
•Judge Dugan has not been forthright with this statement as in fact the law office of Laughlin, Falbo, Levy and Moresi do represent Liberty Mutual. On the website for Laughlin, Falbo, Levy and Moresi they in fact state, “Statement of Practice Summary; Workers' Compensation Defense; (State and Federal), Subrogation, General Civil and Trial Practice, Labor and Employment Law Defense, Maritime Law, Insurance Coverage, General Business, Probate, Real Estate, Condominium Law.
Also listed under representative clients: Liberty Mutual. Verification can be found HERE
•The WCAB said, pertaining to Judge Dugan's prior employment with a law firm that had represented Liberty Mutual in the past:
"...and the WCJ's employment by Liberty Mutual Company many years ago, if true [EMPHASIS ADDED], does not require her disqualification."
