Five Reasons to Cancel Your AAA Membership

Search Google Appliance

Five Frugal Things
Casino revenue The actual revenues from the new casinos around the state -- and the resulting reductions in local municipal taxes -- are way behind the projections made when the idea was pitched to the public. After eleven months, I called to cancel but was told I could not cancel over the phone and they were billing my credit card for another year. Although claimant stopped working as a bus driver in January after suffering a heart attack, in March , he filed a claim for workers' comp based upon an occupational disease stemming from repetitive stress injuries to his legs, including his hips, knees and feet, caused by his many years of working as a bus driver. The statute governing appeals originally declared that the decision was final and conclusive. The carrier consented to the settlement upon the understanding that the carrier's lien for past benefits paid would be satisfied out of the settlement proceeds, and that it would have "a credit for any future benefits owed the claimant until the proceeds of the recovery are exhausted" The Law Judge found that he could not make a proper award without a signed closing statement that indicated the date of payment in the third-party action, and directed claimant to produce that document.

New York State Education Department

COURT DECISIONS

But, heaven help the lawyer who is one day late in a filing at the Board. In an opinion that could well be used in discussing future earnings capability of someone who may return to their home country or even an American considering a move outside the U.

Nor can we say, in the instant case, that the trial court erred in refusing to permit cross-examination of plaintiff about his immigration status and prior desire to return to Ecuador. Any argument, by defendant, that plaintiff was subject to deportation to Ecuador or had expressed an interest, prior to the accident, in someday returning to Ecuador, in an effort to suggest that plaintiff would incur lower medical expenses in Ecuador than in the United States, would also have been inappropriate.

The Following 16 cases await the Court's ruling. Motion for leave to appeal denied. This case was ernver heard before the 3rd Department. It is interesting to note that the first motion to be heard before the 3rd Department, October 9, , was accepted with the caveat that it explain why that motion was filed late. The next five motions to the 3rd were denied, including one denying permission to go to the Court of Appeals which itself, on three occasions, denied a motion to hear the case, December 17, being the last.

Motion for leave to appeal by claimant of an April 16, decision by this Court denied. A previous motion was denied by this same Court September 10, Motion for leave to appeal the Courts August 20, dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.

Claimant has unsuccessfully appealed denial of a Full Board Review. Appeal Dismissed upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Order of ; Affirmance; Leave to appeal granted by Court of appeals, ; Workers' Compensation - Special Funds - where the workers' compensation insurance carrier approves the settlement of a third-party personal injury action without first obtaining the consent of the Special Funds Conservation Committee SFCC to such settlement, and the SFCC thereafter denies retroactive consent for the settlement, does the Court in which the underlying personal injury action was commenced have the power to compel the SFCC to consent to the settlement nunc pro tunc, or must the carrier seek such relief from the Workers' Compensation Board.

Claimant, who resides in Brooklyn, was injured in the course of his employment as a correction officer in Queens. Although this is the fifth ruling against Rella by the Court in two years on this same issue, the points raised by Rella in this case are different from those in his prior cases.

Claimant's counsel, Gerarda M. The Board rejected this assertion finding that there was no reason to anticipate that claimant would be required to attend future hearings in those pending cases, as they were nearing completion. The Law Judge, in denying the venue request, noted that, prior to this application, Rella had been advised in a similar matter that venue was not established for the convenience of the attorney.

On claimant's application for review, the Board affirmed, with one Board member dissenting. Rella's venue request was based upon entirely unsupported assertions that failed to justify a change of venue either outside of claimant's residential district or the district where his public employer is located. We further find that the Board acted within its discretion in declining to consider the newly proffered justification for the venue request, which Rella advanced for the first time in the application for Board review see 12 NYCRR As substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that, prior to this venue change request, Rella had been advised in another matter involving " virtually identical circumstances " regarding the rules governing venue and that Rella had no reasonable basis for either the motion to change venue or the appeal to the Board, we decline to disturb the Board's assessment of separate penalties for the venue request and the appeal to the Board.

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had this venue request been made by an attorney other than Rella, as some of the points Rella raised were not in his prior requests. Claimant, whose duties at Bimbo Bakeries included, among other things, loading a flour sifter machine, submitted a claim in November after experiencing pain in his right wrist and being diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome, flexor tendonitis, and ulnar impaction syndrome.

A Law Judge 1 credited the testimony of claimant's supervisor in determining that claimant's job duties did not entail sufficient repetitive action for an occupational disease and 2 did not credit the opinions of claimant's physicians regarding causation, since both physicians failed to establish an adequate understanding of claimant's work activities or obtain a complete medical history.

Here, the Court wrote: The Board's decision regarding the presence and classification of a medical condition — i. Here, the Board credited the testimony of claimant's supervisor regarding claimant's job duties in determining that claimant failed to sufficiently prove "a specific repetitive movement suggesting a link between a distinctive feature of [his] job and [his] injuries ".

Further, since claimant's physicians failed to show adequate knowledge of his work activities or medical history, " '[t]he Board was free to reject this less-than-compelling medical evidence, ' and its finding that claimant did not submit credible medical evidence of a causally related occupational disease is supported by substantial evidence".

The Following nine cases await the Court's ruling. In February , claimant successfully filed a request for further action seeking authorization for right knee replacement surgery. Liability for a claim shifts to the Special Fund " when an application for compensation is made by an employee.

The Special Fund's "liability [was] triggered, as a matter of law, upon the passage of time as provided by the statute. To hold otherwise would be contrary to the purpose of the statute, which "i s to shift the liability for paying stale claims to the [Special] Fund.

As the result of a July 30, work-related auto accident, workers comp benefits were paid to the claimant by the carrier New Hampshire Insurance Co. In June , the petitioner successfully sought judicial approval of the settlement nunc pro tunc. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

When the plaintiff sought damages for injuries allegedly sustained while participating in the "Enrollment in Work Experience" program, Erie County unsuccessfully sought to have the complaint dismissed on the ground that workers' compensation benefits are plaintiff's exclusive remedy. The Appellate Court found: Thus, the Court "should not have entertained [defendant's] motion at this juncture, and the case should have been referred to the Board for a determination" whether plaintiff has a valid cause of action for damages or whether he is limited to benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law.

When the petitioner failed to demonstrate that she was medically fit to return to work, with or without accommodation, the City served the petitioner with a notice of termination dated July 15, As the result of a cervical injury, the claimant, a certified nurse's assistant, was awarded workers' compensation benefits for a specified period of time.

When she subsequently sought additional causally-related lost earnings, the Board found that claimant sustained a temporary total disability from October onward. But it rejected her claim for further benefits, finding that she was not attached to the labor market from May to October , and that she would accordingly need to establish her reattachment to the labor market in order to be entitled to further awards. At a March , the Board found that she had reattached to the labor market as of January Claimant testified that, when she sought employment within her medical restrictions, she was told that no positions were available to accommodate her disability.

Also, the Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities informed claimant that she would not benefit from its services given her medical limitations. Under these circumstances, the Court agreed that substantial evidence supported the finding that claimant's efforts of actively searching for employment and her goal of remaining attached to the labor market were sufficient to demonstrate her reattachment to the labor market. The Court reviewed the employer's contention that the Board erred in denying its requests for full Board review and found them to be unpersuasive.

Prevailing Party represented by: As the result of several allergic reactions to the hand sanitizer used at the hospital, in she suffered from respiratory distress, resulting in her hospitalization. After claimant stopped working and applied for workers comp, her case was established for a work-related injury of reactive airway dysfunction syndrome and an allergy to the hand sanitizer.

Notably, the Court of Appeals has recognized that "where actual earnings during the period of the disability are established, wage-earning capacity must be determined exclusively by the actual earnings of the injured employee without evidence of capacity to earn more or less during such disability period.

SIF, the employer's carrier, made the last payment of compensation in for a work-related injury and the case was closed. Jill Singer of counsel to the Special Funds respondent. Although claimant suffered an injury in July , her lost work time did not exceed the waiting period, hence no application for lost wages was submitted and no finding was made as to permanency or any degree thereof. On June 12, , the employer was directed to produce payroll records and a C statement of wage earnings for purposes of calculating average weekly wages, and the issue of permanency was left unresolved.

But because the employer did not provide the C until May 17, , after claimant applied for further medical treatment, the Law Judge denied the employer's request to transfer liability, finding that the case was never truly closed, as there were directives for the carrier to produce payroll records and for both sides to submit permanency medical reports, and there was an outstanding issue of average weekly wages.

Upon review, the Board affirmed. Accordingly, the Court agreed that the Board's decision that the case was not truly closed was supported by substantial evidence. Alliance National Insurance and Travelers Indemnity. Claimant suffered two injuries to his left knee while employed as a lineman for a utility company filing claims for workers' comp for each.

The injury Travelers was established for injuries to both of knees, including a total bilateral knee replacement. In February , a Law Judge ruled that apportionment was applicable only to the increase in the SLU for claimant's left leg. Contrary to Alliance's claim, the Court found that the Board did not abuse its discretion when it fully considered Alliance's argument with respect to the manner in which the apportionment percentages should have been applied, but chose not to revisit this issue in light of the February decision.

No opinions were issued these weeks. Claimant, a major league baseball umpire, was awarded workers' comp due to a hip injury. Following complications and several surgeries for hip replacement, he was deemed permanently partially disabled. Claimant commenced a third-party action alleging medical malpractice and products liability claims related to his initial hip replacement device.

The Court agreed, finding found that a agreement was entered into with the claimant in connection with the carrier intervening in the third-party action seeking reimbursement of costs and a workers' comp lien. Email the Insider with your comments and questions. Claimant sustained work related injuries in and a consequential injury in In , the carrier raised the issue of a possible non-work-related accident and injury.

Claimant testified at the initial hearing that she was enrolled in a part-time training position for only a month in and she was not certain whether she had informed the carrier of the position. She also testified that, although it was supposed to be a paid position, she was not paid due to her refusal to participate in the training program. In July , claimant, found to have hypersensitivity reaction to the presence of fungi, had her claim established with a finding of temporary total disability.

In , the claim was amended to include multiple chemical sensitivity and awards were continued. After a Law Judge classified claimant with a permanent total disability, the Board rescinded that finding, referring the matter to an impartial specialist to report on the claimant's disability classification rate. The impartial specialist testified that multiple chemical sensitivity is not a medically-recognized condition and, in any event, it was his opinion that claimant was not suffering from any causally-related disability.

Her January 11, letter seeking a hearing to determine degree of disability resulted in a hearing at which the Law Judge construed the Board's December 19, decision as rejecting his prior decision that claimant suffered a causally-related total disability but continued the case for further development of the record to determine clamant's appropriate, lesser degree of disability.

The employer appealed on the grounds that the Board, on December 12, , had precluded further development of the record as there was no causally-related disability. This appeal was accepted by the Board in a January decision. The Court noted that on January 11, , claimant did file a notice of appeal with the Court as to the December 19, Board decision, but failed to timely perfect that appeal. Claimant received workers comp benefits for work-related injuries until when she returned to work.

After her employment ended in April , she raised the issues of permanency and reduced wages. A Law Judge awarded additional benefits from April 11, to October 29, , but found no further compensable lost time. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the Board's denial of claimant's application was arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of its discretion.

After claimant filed a claim for benefits stating that he had suffered a stroke while working, a Law Judge determined that there was a causal relationship between claimant's stroke and his employment and established the claim.

Prevailing Part y represented by: Claimant opposed, claiming that the appeal was untimely given that the November decision — not the January decision — was final with regard to the SLU. The Court agreed with the Board that, because the Law Judge made the November decision without any explanation of how the As noted by the Board, a schedule award is not given for an injury, but for the residual physical and functional impairments.

Although since claimant has had a neck condition requiring surgeries and intermittent treatment, he worked full time with restrictions until October , when he fell at work sustaining injuries to his back.

Thus, we agree with the Board that apportionment is not applicable here. In June , claimant suffered a work-related injury with benefits paid up to June 20, , when plaintiff returned to work.

In April , claimant's physician requested authorization for an MRI which, on April 23, , showed a medial and lateral meniscal tear. On June 26, , the physician requested authorization to perform surgery, which was performed in late July The Court found that the Board incorrectly considered the case closed once the MRI application was approved in April and then was reopened June 26, when surgery was requested.

The Court wrote that in prior cases it recognized that " decision authorizing [an] MRI [does] not constitute a true closing of the case as [the] claimant's future treatment depended upon the results of the MRI and, thus, further action was contemplated although not planned at that time.

Accordingly, and despite the fact that the hearing transcript was destroyed, the matter must be remitted for further development of the record as to whether claimant ever received or was even entitled to disability payments subsequent to April 21, and to address the absence of a reduced earnings award in the decision at issue herein. Schottenstein alleges that Silverman exceeded the scope of his assigned task by reporting that the medical records he reviewed indicated possible fraudulent billing and unnecessary treatment rendered, and recommending that the matter be referred to the Office of Professional Misconduct and the Attorney General's Office.

The Appellate Court ruled that: The complaint fails to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, since defendant's report fails "to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized communit y. On June 14, , the injured worker, a 56 year old male, was allegedly injured while in a tunnel 60 feet below ground, traveling in a type of train car when the train allegedly stopped violently and abruptly causing him to be thrown forward and backward.

The injuries have resulted in pain, deformity, disability, stiffness, tenderness, tingling sensation, weakness and limitation and have further prevented the plaintiff from enjoying the normal fruits of his activities, including but not limited to social, economic, and educational.

The injured worker objected to some of these demands on the grounds that not all these providers treated him for any of the injuries that he sustained as a result of the accident, and that the demands were "irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence.

However, it is equally well-settled that "[t]he waiver of the physician-patient privilege made by a party who affirmatively asserts a physical condition in its pleading does not permit discovery of information involving unrelated illnesses and treatments. The Court noted that when a plantiff asserts claims for loss of enjoyment of life or for lost future earnings due to a permanent disability, the physical or mental conditions that are affirmatively placed at issue are not readily apparent, which complicates the determination as to what would be " related " to the "condition at issue.

After citing different interpretations from the other Appellate Divisions regarding the scope of the waiver of physician-patient privilege when loss of enjoyment of life is claimed, the Court determined that, by pleading "total disability ", a plaintiff has waived the physician-patient privilege as to his entire medical history. However, a carrier can establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on this category without medical evidence by citing other evidence, such as the injured worker's own deposition testimony or records demonstrating that injured worker was not prevented from performing all of the substantial activities constituting customary daily activities for the prescribed period.

Once the carrier meets this initial burden, the injured worker must then demonstrate a triable issue of fact as to whether he or she sustained a serious injury The injured worker claims he sustained, inter alia, injuries to his right knee, left shoulder and lumbar spine, and an exacerbation of a preexisting left ankle injury as a result of the August 9, motor vehicle accident. Thus, injured worker failed to submit any evidence that raises a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

Petitioner Gonzalez is alleged to have sustained injury on August 14, in a fall while working at the MTA yard in the Bronx. Time sheets reveal that Gonzalez had regularly attended work at the Bronx railway yard where his injury was sustained during the period beginning October 31 and extending through November 16, , and he does not dispute that he traveled by car.

In addition, petitioners do not allege that they were prevented from using alternative methods of public transportation to reach their attorney's office. Petitioners, in Gonzalez's sworn affidavit, have boldly misrepresented their ability to travel into the City to meet with counsel and omitted that Gonzalez actually did travel into the City on numerous occasions in the weeks immediately prior to expiration of the time period for serving a notice of claim.

While the absence of support for a proffered excuse may be outweighed by other considerations petitioners' attempt to deceive the court as to why they were unable to file a timely notice of claim should not be condoned and alone warrants dismissal of the application.

With claimant receiving benefits from a injury at the temporary total disability rate since , a Law Judge issued a decision in November that continued benefits at that rate.

Then in May , the Judge issued a decision continuing those benefits but granted the carrier the right to suspend payments if claimant failed to produce current medical evidence. After the employer appealed both decisions, a Board panel affirmed the Judge.

With regards to the decision, because the issues of medical evidence not warranting a finding of temporary total disability and voluntary withdrawal from the work force were not raised before the Judge, the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider them. When the carrier raised these issues at the hearing and the Judge ruled against them, the Board found that the appeal from that decision was " moot " because the arguments were identical to the ones it refused to consider in the appeal from the November decision.

Under these circumstances, the Court determined that, " the Board failed to engage in its fact-finding role, thereby depriving [the employer] of the opportunity to have the Board consider the merits of an issue that was properly preserved,' [and] its decision must be reversed to allow that review to occur. After filing his claim in March , after a hearing in claimant and his treating physicians appeared and testified, a Law Judge found that the claimant had sustained a work-related injury.

A Board penal reversed, finding that the medical evidence did not support that finding. The claimant testified that he immediately sought medical treatment and the next day he advised the employer.

Although the physician noted that claimant lifted heavy objects as part of his job, no mention was made of when or how claimant injured his back, and the physician acknowledged that claimant previously had been treated for back pain by another provider.

When claimant returned for a follow-up visit one week later, the physician noted that claimant's "back went out " the preceding Monday and that claimant reported "lift[ing] some furniture at home. Claimant then was referred to an orthopedist, who evaluated him on October 15, According to the orthopedist's records, claimant's back pain began at home on October 10, , this "recurrent " pain came on "[g]radually" and claimant " denie[d] trauma.

Claimant sustained several work-related injuries to his shoulders, causing him to miss time from work. Although a Law Judge ruled a temporary total disability and awarded benefits for several of periods of time when he was not working, the employer did not file a request for reimbursement for two of those time periods until after the awards of compensation for those periods had been made.

When the Law Judge later awarded an SLU, he precluded the employer from seeking reimbursement for the two time periods for which it had not timely filed claims for reimbursement. That statute provides that "any salary or wages paid to. In rejecting the employers argument the Court wrote: To analyze these provisions, "the text of a statute is the best evidence of legislative intent and, where the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the court should construe it so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used.

Because these two provisions are related statutes in the Workers' Compensation Law, they "must be construed together unless a contrary legislative intent is expressed, and courts must harmonize the related provisions in a way that renders them compatible. These cross appeals resulted when the Albany County Supreme Court, on September 4, , among other actions.

After the employer, in , raised the issue of attachment to the labor market and sought the testimony of claimant and his medical providers on the issue, a Law Judge denied the employer's request for claimant's testimony, but continued the matter for cross-examination of two of claimant's medical providers. In reversing, the Court noted that: After viewing the video surveillance, the physician concluded that "claimant clearly is capable of doing far more home-based activities than he admitted to during my independent examination.

Under these circumstances, the Board's finding that "[t]he video surveillance does not show any images of the claimant engaging in physical activities inconsistent with any representation he had made to any of the parties' doctors" was determined not to be supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Similarly here, the physician who performed the independent medical examination stated that the surveillance revealed claimant to be "capable of doing far more home-based activities than he admitted to during [the] independent examination. The Court returned the case to the Board for a determination of whether claimant's failure to disclose the extent of his abilities was material, and done both knowingly and for the purpose of obtaining benefits.

She had surgery in and, in , a nerve conduction study revealed possible mild left carpal tunnel syndrome as well. Her doctor's progress report submitted to the Board diagnosed a continued carpal tunnel syndrome in both hands. But the Board found the progress report left issues regarding the left hand unresolved at the time that the employer sought transfer of liability. Accordingly, the Board's determination that the case was never truly closed was supported by substantial evidence and the transfer of liability was properly denied.

In March , claimant — now employed by the City of Geneva Police Department hereinafter GPD — was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated. Shortly thereafter, he began receiving mental health treatment, resigned from his employment with GPD, filed a claim for workers' comp citing his time at the WTC as the cause of injury, naming HPD as his employer. The carrier appealed to the Court on the basis that contended claimant's activity did not constitute participation in the rescue, recovery, or cleanup operations such that it would be covered by Article 8-A and the Board improperly denied their application for FBR.

After 15 years working as a school custodian, in , claimant sought medical treatment for problems, resulting in surgery on both elbows and knees. He filed a claim in September for workers comp based on injuries attributable to " repetitive use of physical labor going up and down the stairs, lifting heavy boxes, [and] shoveling snow. The law judge reestablished the claim, set the data disablement as January 19, , and included the left knee in the claim.

Given that the cited precedent is a prior decision in this case, the applicable doctrine is law of the case. In view of this, the Law Judge's September 10, reserved decision did not foreclose further consideration of this issue by the Board. Technically speaking, the doctrine of res judicata "precludes a party from litigating 'a claim where a judgment on the merits exists from a prior action [or proceeding] between the same parties involving the same subject matter'".

Inasmuch as a prior action or proceeding is not involved here, this doctrine is inapplicable. Although he knew his problems were related to his work as of March and had surgery and medical treatment for a year and a half before filing his claim, he left the employer with no knowledge that the injuries were work-related nor giving it an opportunity to investigate the claim.

Here, claimant acknowledged that he spent most of his time at a membership cafe and occasionally, among other things, unlocked the cafe door in the morning and swept the premises in exchange for the owner, his cousin, allowing him to sleep in a room above the cafe following marital difficulties.

According to claimant, he received no compensation for any minimal activity that he performed at the cafe. The employer's surveillance videos and testimony of its private investigator did not contradict claimant's testimony, which primarily show claimant sitting or standing outside the cafe smoking, talking on a cell phone or drinking coffee.

To the extent that the employer challenges the denial of its application for full Board review on the ground that it was denied solely by the chair on behalf of the Board, we find that such challenge is moot given that a three-member panel subsequently considered and denied that application for full Board review as set forth in a decision filed June 23, Injured in , claimant first sought medical treatment in April and continued to work until March The filing of his claim [ Ed.

The Court noted that decisions on compensation claims issued by arbitrators pursuant to an authorized alternative dispute resolution program are not reviewed by the Workers Comp Board, but may be appealed directly to the Court. Also, the substantial evidence standard does not apply to appeals of claims reaching the Court through the latter procedural route; rather, these cases are reviewed under the standard applicable to review of arbitration awards in general.

Pursuant to that standard, courts have limited power to review an arbitrator's award and the Court cited a prior ruling: Claimant has not shown that the award was irrational, which would require a showing of an utter lack of any proof to justify the award.

Claimant presented proof that his first treatment occurred in April As claimant concedes that the date of disablement is a discretionary determination and the date of first medical treatment is a proper option, the arbitrator's selection of that date was not irrational. Singer of counsel to the Special Funds respondent. The carrier appealed, during which time the claimant died from causes unrelated to the underlying injury. The carrier then requested that the decisions directing it to make a lump-sum payment to the ATF be rescinded because of claimant's death.

The Board upheld the decision by a 2 to 1 vote. Because there was a dissent, the carrier was entitled to and sought full Board review. As noted in my e-mail BULLETIN issued this afternoon, just after the Court of Appeals issued this decision, it is my sense that the legislation was either purposely muddled or designed in the same way as the proverbial elephant: Langan, a former U.

Treasury official who wrote the following in an op-ed entitled " The Language of Diplomacy ": At one point in my federal government career, I wrote up an explanation of a complicated matter in which I considered to be an extremely clear, cogent manner.

The senior government official to whom I reported read it carefully, ruminating and adjusting his glasses as he read it. Then he looked up at me and said " This isn't any good. I understand it completely.

Take it back and muddy it up. I want the statement to be able to be interpreted two or three ways. After a claim was placed for a November work related injury, the carrier controverted the claim on the grounds that the employer's policy had been canceled in August due to failure of the employer to pay the premiums.

In affirming the Board, the Court noted that the record showed that the carrier had sent the cancellation notice, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the employer's chief executive officer at her home address, on or about August 4, , with an effective date of cancellation of August 18, Claimant sustained non-work-related, serious injuries to his neck, back and left shoulder as the result of and automobile accidents.

He continued working as a car inspector for the self-insured employer until , when after developing incapacitating neck, back and leg pain, he applied for workers' comp, asserting that his physical problems and a consequential psychiatric injury were related to repetitive work-related tasks and constituted an occupational disease.

Although the employer failed to timely file a notice of controversy and, as such, was precluded from submitting evidence on the issue of whether claimant's condition arose out of and in the course of his employment, the Judge, later affirmed by a Board panel, found the opinions of claimant's treating physicians regarding causation to be incredible and disallowed the claim.

The employer's failure to timely file a notice of controversy did not "relieve claimant from his burden to demonstrate a causal relationship" between his employment and medical condition.

The Court then noted that:. The record here reflects that claimant has been receiving related medical treatment from at least onward. Claimant sought more intensive treatment after his pain worsened in , but no physician drew a causal link between the condition and his employment until he raised the issue with his physicians at a friend's urging. An orthopedic surgeon who treated claimant further testified that claimant gave conflicting accounts as to how he had aggravated the condition in and that claimant's spinal and shoulder problems could have resulted from degenerative changes.

The Board was free to reject this less-than-compelling medical evidence as incredible and, as such, substantial evidence supports its finding that claimant did not show the existence of a causally related occupational disease.

After a work-elated back injury resulted in the claimant leaving the nursing profession because of her moderate, permanent partial disability and began working in a delicatessen, at a lower wage. Upon claimant's application for review, the Board increased claimant's degree of disability and concluded that her wage loss benefits should be based upon her actual reduced earnings from the delicatessen where she now works, as opposed to her degree of disability, and adjusted her weekly awards accordingly.

The Court of Appeals has repeatedly explained that, for claimants who have demonstrated that they remain attached to the labor market, "where actual earnings during the period of the disability are established, wage earning capacity must be determined exclusively by the actual earnings of the injured employee without evidence of capacity to earn more or less during such disability period.

As the result of a work-related automobile accident, claimant successfully filed a claim for injuries to his the neck and back later that year, with claimant directed " to submit medical evidence for all additional sites claimed.

In April , after alleging that he had sustained mental injuries as a result of the incident, that claim was combined with his case which was amended to include consequential posttraumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety.

The claimant did return to work but suffered from various stress issues on his return, all of which were clearly delineated by his treating psychologist who stated in no uncertain terms that those conditions flowed from the May incident. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Insider September 18, This case has been posted because there are a number of very unhappy injured workers who feel that the NYS workers compensation systems, i. This decision basically tells them that seeking redress through the federal courts will not work. That is an overstatement. Email the Insider with your c omments and questions. The Court noted in a footnote that: I have sent an e-mail to the law firm inquesion asking about the continuing to appel Board decisionson this issue and will print their response next week.

One year after receiving an award based upon her claim that work-related stress caused her to develop an adjustment disorder with mixed depressed mood and anxiety and chronic emotional stress, she sought to amend her claim to include causally-related cardiac conditions of hypertension, mitral and tricuspid heart valve insufficiency and an enlarged left atrium.

The result of several hearing found no further causally-related disability and no entitlement to payment for intermittent lost time. He further opined that the minimal mitral and tricuspid valve insufficiency levels evidenced in claimant's echocardiogram report were normal, as such trace conditions are commonly found in most people. Finally, he opined that claimant's enlarged left atrium could not have been caused by stress or psychological factors, based upon the results of the echocardiogram.

As to the request for intermittent lost time benefits, the claimant had been taking off an entire day for a minute appointment, which her psychologist said could have been scheduled for later in the afternoon. The self-insured employer SIE asserted that she had staged the fall.

A Law Judge, after conducting hearings and viewing video footage of the incident, established the claim. The employer alleged that claimant misrepresented the degree of his disability. After several hearings, decisions by Law Judges, Board panels, and a full board review, it was determined that while the Fund does not have standing "t o litigate the primary issues of compensability of the underlying claim for benefits " or " to reopen a claimant's case and contest the compensability of the claim, " it does have standing with respect to proceedings involving claims against the Fund.

Singer of counsel to the Special Funds. The plaintiff was assigned by TemPositions to Columbia University and, while walking to the coatroom where she was working, tripped and fell. Columbia University established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint through the deposition testimony and affidavit of the general manager at Columbia and the affidavit of TemPositions' chief executive officer, that the defendant controlled and directed the manner, details, and ultimate result of the plaintiff's work.

The defendant also had the authority to discharge the plaintiff, and the work she performed was in furtherance of the defendant's business. In addition, the plaintiff, at her own deposition, the transcript of which was submitted by the defendant in support of its motion, stated, inter alia , that TemPositions told her where and to whom to report, but that the defendant's supervisors instructed her on her work duties.

Thus, the defendant established, prima facie , that it was the plaintiff's special employer. It therefore cannot be the exclusive remedy. However, the critical distinction in this case is that the motor vehicle accident involved vehicles operated by coemployees. The prescribed SUM endorsement language at issue is plain and unambiguous. Indeed, as noted above, the standard form for SUM coverage was promulgated in order to "eliminate ambiguity, minimize confusion and maximize its utility.

In the overwhelming majority of those decisions, all interpreting similar "legally entitled to recover damages" policy language, the courts have concluded that, because of workers' compensation exclusive remedy provisions, a plaintiff is not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits.

Here, pursuant to the plain language of the SUM endorsement, plaintiff is not "legally entitled to recover damages" from the owner and operator of the offending vehicle because of the status of the operator, Cathlyn Haggerty, as plaintiff's coemployee. Claimant, a police sergeant, filed a claim for workers' comp benefits asserting that he suffered a work-related myocardial infarction December 18, , first experiencing mild symptoms while exercising that morning and that, after ascending a flight of stairs at work, he began experiencing shortness of breath, chest pain and arm numbness.

His subsequent visit to the hospital showed he suffered a myocardial infarction. The Board ultimately ruled that the infarction was precipitated by the stair climbing, and that it constituted an accident arising out of and in the course of claimant's employment. As the two cardiologists who participated in this case opined that the stair climbing at work acted to trigger a myocardial infarction and no medical evidence was presented to call the opinions of those physicians into question, substantial evidence in the record supported the Board's determination that claimant's myocardial infarction was causally linked to his employment.

After the claimant testified in that she had not worked for anyone in any capacity during the time following her injury, the carrier presented surveillance videos and a written report prepared by a private investigator reflecting claimant leaving her home, driving to a chiropractor's office and remaining there for several hours, wearing a uniform bearing that office's logo, and running errands with other people from that office.

The Court agreed that this constituted substantial evidence supporting the Board's determination that claimant was working after her injury and concealed her employment for the purposes of receiving benefits. The employer conceded, however, that it did not raise this issue either before the WC Law Judge or in its initial application for review by the Board panel, and the Board did not address it. In both cases, ' claimants ' appealed, challenging both the denial of venue transfer and the penalty.

In fact, these two cases bring to a total of three that have been argued, and lost, on this one issue by the Law Offices of Joseph Romano, since December of last year. After the claimant had obtained benefits, she and the carrier stipulated that claimant had sustained a permanent partial disability and had not voluntarily removed herself from the work force, with a decision to that effect issued in Several years later, an IME found claimant capable of working with restrictions.

The Board, noting its departure from prior precedent, held that " a claimant's failure to respond to a work search inquiry without something more may not constitute sufficient evidence of a triable issue of fact upon which a reopening may be based.

If this case appears familiar, it is. The petitioning law firm, the Law Offices of Joseph A. Claimant was an employee of Alitalia until his position was eliminated as part of a staff reduction program at which time he was hired by Swissport to, in effect, perform for Swissair exactly the same duties under the same manner of supervision and work rules.

The employer ILT is a tutoring referral and billing service that provides in-home tutors to clients seeking assistance with school work and test preparation. After being assessed for unemployment insurance contributions on behalf of the tutors, ILT countered that its tutors were independent contractors. Claimant injured his back while working and thereafter worked intermittently both for his original employer and at a new employer, LKQ Broadway where he was ultimately terminated absenteeism.

After he ceased working and received unemployment insurance benefits, a Law Judge concluded that his separation from employment was due to his compensable back injury and that he did not voluntarily withdraw from the labor market.

A Board panel, in a split decision, reversed the Law Judge and on Full Board Review, determined that claimant's awards must be rescinded, finding that claimant failed to produce sufficient evidence of an attachment to the labor market. Nevertheless, "even though there is in the record substantial evidence to support the determination made," the Board's "failure to conform to [its] precedent will.

Although the Board found that the claimant was actively participating in a search with One-Stop, because claimant did not provide documentation of his participation, the Board concluded that he failed to adequately demonstrate attachment to the labor market. Under these circumstances, the Board has not adequately explained its departure from its prior precedent.

Accordingly, the decision of the full Board must be reversed and the matter remitted to the Board for further proceedings. Claimant sought psychiatric treatment shortly thereafter and successfully filed a claim for posttraumatic stress and adjustment disorder. The employer argued that the verbal threat could not give rise to a compensable stress claim, noting mitigating factors such as the presence of others in the operating room and claimant's familiarity with the surgeon's " difficult " personality.

However, the Board determined that claimant's uncontroverted psychiatric diagnoses were caused by the incident, and that, threats of physical violence made by her supervisor constituted greater stress than that which normally occurs in similar work environments.

Inasmuch as such determination is supported by substantial evidence and this Court cannot "reject the Board's choice simply because a contrary determination would have been reasonable," it must be upheld. While working as an assistant store manager, he made a telephone call to a coworker at her home to discuss a work-related matter.

Following that telephone call, the coworker's husband became convinced that claimant and the coworker were engaged in a romantic relationship, prompting the coworker's husband to undertake a course of threatening and harassing conduct against claimant, culminating in an unsuccessful murder-for-hire plot against him.

Additionally, the coworker's husband contacted claimant's supervisor regarding the alleged affair, which triggered an internal investigation by the employer and ultimately resulted in claimant requesting a transfer to another store.

As a result, claimant's preexisting posttraumatic stress disorder was exacerbated to the point that he was unable to continue to work. Claimant the successfully filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, affirmed by a split Board panel and a Full Board review.

Here, the work-related phone call from claimant to his coworker's home was the basis for the subsequent harassment of claimant at his place of employment, the employer's internal investigation and claimant's request for a transfer, all of which exacerbated claimant's preexisting stress disorder. And since the record revealed no connection between claimant and the coworker's husband outside of claimant's work-related duties, the Board properly found the required nexus between the threatening conduct that exacerbated claimant's preexisting condition and claimant's employment.

Joseph of counsel to James A. In , claimant's husband hereinafter decedent was found to be permanently partially disabled due to injuries to his lungs and he received benefits until his death in The Court agree with the Board that substantial evidence was represented by the decedent's death certificate listing the immediate cause of death as sepsis, as a consequence of respiratory failure and a C medical report completed by decedent's physician of 20 years, who most recently saw decedent in June , opined that decedent's death was caused either directly or indirectly by his work-related illness.

In , plaintiff determined that the Trust was insolvent and assumed its administration. Several appeals and cross appeals were made by all the parties regarding leal fees how much and by whom. After claimant suffered compensable injuries, he was awarded a schedule loss of use and the case closed in Thereafter, his condition deteriorated and, in September , his orthopedic surgeon requested authorization to perform surgery, a request which, because the carrier did not respond within 30 days, was approved, in November , by WCB Chairman issuing " an order stating that such request is deemed authorized.

In March , a Law Judge shifted liability to the Fund effective , but held that the carrier remained liable for the surgical costs due to its failure to properly administer the request for authorization. The Court ruled that: Here, the employer entered into an agreement with claimant on December 30, that permitted claimant to retain the proceeds of the third-party action in exchange for, among other things, his forbearance of future indemnity benefits. In our view, these proceeds constituted a lump-sum payment for purposes of the statute.

Thus, because the settlement agreement effectively " disposed " of the employer's obligation to pay future indemnity benefits in exchange for claimant's retention of a lump-sum payment from the third-party action, application of the statute is appropriate to bar transfer of liability for future medical benefits to the Special Fund.

The Court reversed the Board, sending the case back for the Board to calculate the date to which the amount paid in the settlement would extend? Claimant was not registered or affiliated with any volunteer organization or agency during the course of these two days, and he did not aid in the rescue or recovery operations after September 12, A Board panel, citing the definition of "first response emergency services personnel " as set forth in the final revised Order of the Chair No.

In reversing the Board, the Court summarized its position: Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Benefits were awarded and, then, rescinded August 28, by a Board Panel.

A year later, on August 14, , a Law Judge awarded benefits for January 21 to April 1, but omitted mention of the 9-month period. However, this contention ignores the fact that, pursuant to the August 28, WCLJ decision, compensation for the period between February and October had been held in abeyance and was, as of yet, unresolved. Although the employer further argues that the case should have been considered truly closed because no further evidence was submitted regarding the periods held in abeyance, that contention is belied by the fact that the employer itself affirmatively addressed the issue in January , evincing the fact that said compensation was still at issue.

Accordingly, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision that the case was never truly closed and, thus, transfer of liability to the Special Fund would have been premature. Singer of counsel to the Special Funds and Iris A. After the claimant was classified with a permanent partial disability due to a left shoulder injury, the carrier leaned that the claimant suffered from, among other things, preexisting hypertension and degenerative disc disease.

Singer of counsel to the Special Funds Conservation Committee, respondent. Claimant, an insurance salesperson, sustained compensable injuries to her head, neck and back from a fall at work, retiring at the end of that year and, in , was diagnosed with Parkinson's. She sought to amend her claim adding consequentially related Parkinson's and seeking post retirement benefits.

The WCB determined her disease was unrelated to the accident and that she had retired voluntarily. It is cheap, filling, and good for you. I planned dinner, but I am just too tired to cook it. It took more time than I expected, but I made more money than expected. This is a good thing. However, I really need to clean my house.

My budget is not going according to plan, so I need to rework things. I am trying so hard to increase my savings rate. I hear you on the pain that ebay can be. The tag was visible in the first photo, and the second photo was a close up of the tag — clear and easy to read. Just click, buy ….. I was told that I was negligent also. When I get frustrated, I remind myself that most people are kind. I got the impression that my buyer was trying to work a discounted price too. They complain by nitpicking on a detail, and count on the seller to issue a partial refund rather than dealing with negative feedback or having to accept a refund if they report it to ebay.

Brought home the shampoo and conditioner from the hotel we stayed at during our work conference. No late fees or interest charges for me! It was totally delicious, saved some otherwise wasted ingredients, and it even made enough for a second dinner as leftovers!

One of my grad students works at the campus coffee shop and he was there when I was in line today, so I accepted his offer of a free fill-up of my travel mug. Reading library books, bringing lunch from home, riding my bike to work, hanging laundry on the line to dry—all the usual money-saving stuff! So make sure to check out your Life Balance benefits when searching for a cellular service provider.

I just re-read that last part. It came out wrong…. Mended two socks, a pair of pants and a dog bed-again. Made a dog toy from a sock and a plastic bottle. They loved it until they killed it. My husband ebayed a large nutcracker that has been taking up space for years. Went on a 2 night girl trip with friends. Not frugal, but it has been a long time since I did that. Gas and hotel split 4 ways, free hotel breakfast, senior discounts on some activities and others that were free, and very little spent on shopping.

One night we skipped dinner and had snacks in the hotel room. Came back refreshed and energized. Saw another movie with our Movie Pass card. The usual of eating all leftovers, or feeding them to dogs, composting scraps, reading library books, wearing thrifted clothing. My wonderful husband took the kids to the dentist today.

My daughter needed one small filling, and he got it filled while my son was getting his cleaning. It may have also saved on the copay, but it mostly saved my sanity be not having three more errands! Cleaned the bathroom today with baking soda and vinegar. It needed it, it looks nice now, and the change was cheap. The Laundry Fairy has been feeling unappreciated around here, and she quit. I taught my daughter to wash her clothes and hang them on the line.

It makes the house look better, and it makes me feel better, for no money. I even decluttered a couple of movies which I will post to ebay. I am having an insane week at work which leads to more frugal fails than usual: Support the cause, just forgot until the very last moment to pay the tax! I have never heard of that also.

I guess since it is a tax, it is a requirement? Sorry if it is a stupid question. Yup, it is required. It was referred to voters by the City Council for approval a few years ago and the voters approved it.

Still eating down the freezer. Made chicken stock in the slow cooker from a roast chicken. The chicken was dinner two nights and lunch two days.

I got my free packets of seeds from my gardening club. Members get 8 packets of seeds a year, four in autumn and four in Spring. I almost always choose the vegetable seeds. Ended up in our freezer. Yes, and think of all the probiotics you got in your vegetable. Wonder what that dream means? I got some books out of the little free library and have started reading a couple. I love those things!

Some nights we are eating simple eggs and toast. Inexpensive and pretty healthy. Walking for exercise instead of paying to join a gym. Still taking expired vitamins. Also, I did a trial of the glucosamine for anyone interested. I was on both regularly. So I stopped taking glucosamine for about a week and in about two days in I was aching all over, especially my back where I have disc herniation.

As soon as I started taking it again, I am mostly pain free. Oh, and my glucosamine is also expired. I believe in it for sure now…Just my two cents. Technically that could still be the placebo effect. The way to really test it would be to take two identical pills in two different weeks- one glucosamine, one a placebo, and then measure the effects.

Then find out what you were taking…. Yeah, that would take the mental part out of it. The end result is the same.. There are many nutritional protocols and supplements that can help control symptoms.

Also, I love reading your posts from down under. I was rough on my body as a child, also. I did a lot of gymnastics, rode horses, and just lots of climbing and falls in general.

I have been tested and I do not have it per the bloodwork but the rheumatologist still thinks I do, so go figure. Lots of chemo drugs are being used now with some good results. Or would you go a more natural route? I personally only take supplements for now.

Not knocking it at all — I guess I was just wondering if the glucosamine works. But I can see how my comments could have come off a bit snippy. Your comments are fine. I hate wasting money on things that are BS. Maybe you should try taking it for a few weeks. For many drugs on the market, the experts never really know the mechanism of action, they just figured out it worked while using it for something else.

Honestly, I think it works because when I would forget to take it for a few days because I was feeling so much better, the pain begins to come back. Again, that could be placebo.. Let us know if you try it, please! But then I tend to be that way myself. And the content is all free! We use glucosamine and fish oil for one of our dogs that has joint pain.

But as mentioned above, does take six to eight weeks to get into system good. We started off with liquid then transitioned to pills. She gets both pills in the morning before breakfast. I still have my menstrual cup that I bought over three years ago. I cut green onions and chives from the garden and dehydrated them. An onion in our pantry sprouted. Instead of tossing it, I found directions online to plant it.

Hey — those costco hot dogs with a shared order of fries with gravy constitute a date at my house lol. I question the nutritional value of almost all food when eating out so in the big picture the hot dog was a win on the frugal side. We always feel super dissapointed about the cost versus yum ratio when we eat out — with the exception of the costco hot dogs as they are sold as a loss leader with s pricing for a reason.

Frugal this week — credit card got compromised so was without for a whole week and surprise surpise I spent far less at the grocery store than I normally do because I paid cash. Must be a regional thing! What a sweet surprise! She made my work day a whole lot brighter! With one son in college and another starting in the fall, this is not good news.

I recently mentioned that I had a big car repair. Um … I had them do the recommended repairs. They offered a free detailing instead not interested. I want the refund. Said party is a 40th birthday and the invite states no gifts. I froze it, which will come in handy for future lunches. Got a call during work on monday that i needed to head to NH for my mom. I ran home, packed a few things including snacks and hit the road.

I did step out monday evening to go across the street and buy a med. My brother and sisters were there for a while and my brother and i were there when she took her last breath.

My mother sang like an Angel and now she is singing with Angels! The church was available for a saturday funeral and we can use their hall too! Since my mother pre-paid her funeral arrangements, i only have the tips for the organist a very good friend of my mother and the singer another friend and tips for the caterer and volunteers to take care of. My mother had some cash in an envelope tucked away and it should be enough to tip anyone we need to.

Since DH passed last year, my DS already had a suit to wear and it was cleaned already. She had told me he got her more money back than she had ever received in the past! DS and I are staying at my in-laws and one of my sisters has opened her home to nieces and nephews. She was one of a kind, and so are you. And condolences to all your family as you assemble for her funeral. So sorry for the loss of your mother—and your DH. Sounds like you are surrounded by loved ones.

Nancy, my thoughts and prayers are with you and your family. May her love stay in your heart forever. Nancy I am so sorry for your loss. Even though your mother is at peace now it is still a huge loss for you I am sure. And having lost your DH last year must make it all the harder. Nancy, so sorry for your loss. And keep the stories coming! We are an eager audience. And put quotes that she used to say to us kids and the grandkids.

Loved your ability to find humor in this most difficult of times. So sorry for your loss. My father passed 5 years ago and we still get together with my mom, sister and her family, and some of his closest friends to go out to dinner for his birthday. The funny stories and there are so many get shared and laughed about all over again.

Awe, so sorry to hear. I have so enjoyed your last few posts about your mom. They are beautiful stories that you can take with you. Never an easy thing, to lose a mother. Getting here late, but Nancy, you have my sympathies — and my admiration for your humor and grace.

You are in my thoughts. He paid for my lunch. I think he was thrilled to have the company, since we talked about the upcoming vacation he and his wife are taking in a few weeks. Free lunch and good company is always nice. The ones I have are faux pearls, but they belonged to my Mom. So I wore them and honored two gracious ladies today and they look nice.

No vacation no expense, I guess. At least the dentist gives a modest discount if major work like crowning is paid for by check, which we did. A Marie, so sorry about the ticket!

I had a gigantic pickup truck nearly run me off the road, then pull in front and stop suddenly, all while flashing the international one-fingered symbol for mild annoyance.

Very grateful not to have either a ticket or a smashed car to show for it. I let a guy turn in to my street, from his driveway.

He proceeded to honk and flip me off through the stoplight, around the turn and until he turned onto a different road. I still wonder if he thought I was someone else. Found a dime at the store but never find multiple coins! Attended low-cost CE program today. Enjoyed complimentary AM coffee but took my own lunch, snacks and other beverages. Recently restocked my elbow macaroni supply, as I buy a less expensive 5 bag and divide in to 5 bags of 1 pasta. Ongoing efforts to turn heat down when no one is home, turn lights off that are left on by family members and packing lunches.

Or maybe a chart showing energy useage, with the 2hole team working to push that line down? Or maybe a chart showing energy useage, with the whole team working to push that line down? I like both of your ideas but they would require team cooperation which I feel is sadly lacking. Definitely food for thought! Two and a half years ago my partner and I bought a block of land by the coast to downsize into our retirement.

The hope is that we will choose suitable plants so have less loses. Our theme is Mediterranean Coastal with as much food growing as possible. Some areas will not be reticulated so plants need to be very drought tolerant eg. Olive, Pomegranate, Bay 2. We have an initial plan for the garden. What works well will stay and be a windbreak for newer plants that replace those that are struggling.

The ones I have bought have come heavily discounted, nearly dead. We have been cultivating our own compost and worm castings and did pay for soil improvers so each plants gets a very good start in the garden. The building process has certainly required massive amounts of patience. In contrast to the previous two weeks of almost constant dining out — even breakfast [hangs head in shame] during a dreadful project crunch at work.

Like, such a surprise we have not met the betrothed. Entire extended family is trekking to their university town for an introduction in two weeks, and I found a fabulous, large home to rent that will even allow us to bring the dog for much less than the cost of 4 or 5 hotel rooms. On the market for a million bucks. Hubs and I looked at those numbers and decided this is a bubble. No gold plating, barely room for the two of us and the dog. Will just have to wait and see. Good luck with your real estate adventures in your new city.

I opted to come home and fix up leftovers for the family. Every little bit helps. Shopped at Aldi and stocked up on a few things 2. Had friends over for dinner and made a chicken pot pie with things I had on hand and cookies for dessert. I had all the baking ingredients on hand as well. Returned a few cans I found 4. It is still cold here in MA but no snow. This is a relief financially as no snow means no paying the plow guy. He works are but it sure was an expensive winter. Happened upon a very interesting free pile.

My second thought- I have to do a frugal five! Hubs sliced up some leftover london broil, added gravy and mushrooms and we had delicious hot steak sandwiches for dinner 3. Donated 5 bags of garden soil to my sons garden club. Wearing jeans and shirt that are at least 10 years old but somehow still look good, 5. The kids could eat grilled cheese sandwiches with sliced apples and boiled eggs for supper every single day. I thought if I only had a little bit of land on which things grew, surely I would be cool maintaining it.

I desperately want to hire out this chore. But for now I am sucking it up and spending an hour this afternoon raking and weed eating. I then decided that I wanted the material to be really fresh in my mind so I wanted to knock it all out in one evening.

My dogs and husband are too distracting so I went to Panera Bread to read the material. I only bought a drink which is very expensive at Panera because I feel bad sitting somewhere without buying something.

However, when I was walking out at closing time, an employee offered me a free bagel of my choice since they were going to throw it out anyway!

Threw it in the freezer for another day. I threw it in my Instant Pot Sunday evening and had planned out several meals I wanted to use it for. Nothing went to waste except for the rubbery meat, of course. Most of these savings were through ibotta. Plus I used a gift card I had to pay! Frugal fail but oh well — my dog has some eye issues which required us to take him to a vet ophthalmologist. It is overpriced, but since we could bring our dog we went anyway.

We really enjoyed it! I made a pot roast in my instant pot also, but it was tough —not quite rubbery. I was terribly disappointed. I find the only way to get a good pot roast is to slow cook it in the Dutch oven.

I usually cook my pot roasts in my slow cooker especially if they are bought on sale because sometimes there is a reason they are on sale. Good results in the slow cooker. Out of town for a few days: Stayed on top of medical bills and insurance issues. Will be making soup for future lunches, using mostly leftovers and scraps: Under a crunch for a personal thing: I brought my lunch every day this week and only caved on a to-go coffee once!

I quit an organization I was working with that I realized besides the impact on my stress level, was also v expensive. I quit for my mental health, but my wallet is also very happy. Going to Ireland next month and convinced the BF to stay almost exclusively in hostels. Total cost of lodging per person: I impulse bought a dress and it does not fit well. Created a spreadsheet to track my budget and project out costs for the next month. The next few months are going to be wicked expensive and I want to be ready for it.

Just got booted off while trying to post FFTs.

II. State Education Department