i filed a claim for workers compensation regarding the causal relationship of my the nature of the jobs i held and the ensuing Chronic Fatigue from which i am not disabled. The claim was controverted and denied on the basis of lack of medical evidence in support although the contention of the employer's legal representative was that the illness was psychological and not medically based. There is also contention as i was released from my job(s) as they could not substitute or temporarily fill due the the distinct nature and 24/7 on call responsibilities as stated in the agencies rebuttal to human rights versus their statement that the work i did was menial and generalized when told to workers compensation. The determinations were also based upon mainly heresay of the respondents as there was either no documentation, questionable documentation or incomplete documents to back their assertions.
What i am asking as i am and have basically been representing myself even when i did have a lawyer, is how is it the workers comp. based on laws of fact yet it doesn't seem to follow that premise? Also how is a determination made based on case precedent when there is not a precendent within the State? i ask respectfully as i am at the Appellate division and am befuddled on how the "rules" can be construed for one party and not the other? There is more to the story...thank you.
What i am asking as i am and have basically been representing myself even when i did have a lawyer, is how is it the workers comp. based on laws of fact yet it doesn't seem to follow that premise? Also how is a determination made based on case precedent when there is not a precendent within the State? i ask respectfully as i am at the Appellate division and am befuddled on how the "rules" can be construed for one party and not the other? There is more to the story...thank you.