Bad Faith
The tactics of Lois Law misrepresented, prejudiced and corrupted a question of law and medical peril, referred to the Workers Compensation Court for resolution by the NYS Labor Department, twisting facts in an attempt to erase medical reality. Their cavalier machinations demonstrate a wanton refusal to act on a known risk and depraved indifference to documented critical injury.
Mr. Gourley—the lawyer Chubb sent to the 6-22-23 hearing on medical issues:
>At 6-21-23 Hearing: “Her primary issues are alluding to a nefariousness being carried out by the carrier.” (ROA p. 317)
>His phone call to me the next day, “I’m not interested in the medical issues. I’m just here to offer a settlement.”
>Trashing my doctor:
“The doctors are not submitting any documentation…” (ROA p 318)
“ … there are other things in that letter that are being misconstrued and Chubb has no documents with regard to things like that.” (ROA p. 326)
“…there’s no agreement that was ever made…” (ROA p. 368)
“ Any doctor you’re treating with is not submitting it properly” (ROA p. 369-370 )
“ The doctor you’re currently treating with doesn’t follow the rules. He doesn’t know what he’s doing.” (ROA p. 389 )
Mr. O’Donnell’s Appellate Brief is a litany of snide innuendo masked as case history— ending with vicious character assasination about the prescribed, Chubb authorized, medically documented, central nervous system medication regimen—that demonstrates a want of soul:
The first time I spoke to Mr. O’Donnell, he said that I could not speak to him again, “due to the nature of your case and the fact that you are pro se. You can only text me.” Everyone in the Appellate system was telling me he was supposed to talk to me ‘because’ I was pro se. His office told me: “You are not allowed to speak to anyone.”
His 54-page Appellate Brief is a litany of snide innuendos masked as case history. But his final comments capture Chubb’s manipulation of the truth, blatant character assaination and unmitigated bad faith.
>“The appeal on the whole appears to be a vehicle for an entirely separate crusade and not the limited issues at bar.” (Brief p. 2)
>“The Respondent indicated that there was no “agreement” that was ever made. R. p.368-369 (Brief p. 26)
>”Most of the Appellant’s grievances arise from a misunderstanding of the applicable laws.” (Brief p. 42)
>“…the Appellant wages a crusade while ignoring the viable, logical options to present her case cogently. And to what end?” (Brief p. 51)
>“The reality of this case is that the Appellant is prescribed a very potent, very addictive regimen of medications….Throughout the record, there is evidence that the Appellant is taking Dilaudid – morphine – but this medication was not submitted through the PAR process by a doctor and certainly was not authorized by the Respondent. In fact, the Appellant casually indicated in her Appellant’s Brief before this Court that she does not have a doctor who will authorize her Dilaudid, then implying that her morphine is supplied elsewhere. We have a situation where the Appellant wants potent, deadly medication – Dilaudid, morphine – such that she is obtaining it by other means (for example, through her ….) and then implying that she will seek a back-end reimbursement from the Respondent, claiming that it is related to this nearly half-century-old case. The Appellant wants to sidestep the whole PAR review system, the entirety of the MTGs, and the Drug Formulary. Fortunately, given the opioid epidemic, a paper trail is now required, and doctors hold themselves and their licenses out to the 52. Workers’ Compensation Board and the State of New York when making a request for narcotics and opioids. . The fact that there is evidence (and a concession) that the Appellant is taking Dilaudid (hydromorphone, an opioid – morphine) obtained elsewhere with Baclofen (a muscle relaxant) and Lidoderm (a local anesthetic lidocaine patch) is unsettling, alarming, and disturbing.” (Mr. O’Donnell’s Brief p. 51, 52)
>“not that the treatment regimen is controlled by the claimant. The medical profession is the knowledgeable safeguard here to prevent flagrant misuse. If the Appellant is claiming that the separately- obtained Dilaudid is related to this case, and if no doctor signed his or her name on a recommendation to the New York Workers’ Compensation Board that the Dilaudid is, then the claim that the Dilaudid is medically related is legally unsubstantiated.” (Brief p. 52)
>“Asserting that an alleged agreement existed does not mean that it actually did. ….. No one is immune to the legal process. Legal standards do not change unilaterally based on the person, and no one is above the law.“ (Brief p. 52)
>“The Appellant’s submission is a vehicle for an entirely separate crusade and not limited to the issues at bar.” (Brief p. 53)
**