With my learning coming to a close, I spent the day brainstorming for my intensive fair presentation. Here are my initial sketches:
0 Comments
As far as last days go, today stood out to me. It started off similar to the rest, a scheduled pre trial mediation with Mr. Boissoneault, but quickly turned into one of my favorite days of the intensive.
During the car ride, I had a very enlightening conversation with Mr. Boissoneault about my general takeaways from the past weeks. We talked about what I did like, what I didn't and I asked him his track and weather he thought he could do. I also asked him about cases I'd seen in the news and the goings on about them, which was really interesting to me. Another part of the conversation I enjoyed was talking about the grander implications of law, like how it affected government and politics around us. In light of recent events and the state of our country he said, upholding the law even in small ways is what keeps our country going forward and upholding the promises to its citizen's that it needs to. Once we got to court, we met the client, an older man who had been hit by a car at a stop sign. While his injuries were not as dramatic as some I've seen during the intensive, they somehow had a deeper impact to his life. The man was a self proclaimed "audiophile" who turned his love of sound and music into a career. He explained to me how decibels and gHz's worked, but then with a sullen face told me that the accident had given him insufferable tinnitus. Because of this, he couldn't listen to music like he could before, or enjoy his hobby even closely to the ways he did before. The pre-trial was to settle on the damages so that they wouldn't go to trial. he explained to me that he'd rather get his hearing back with no money than go through all of this. Between Mr. Boissoneault going back and forth, the man talked to me about his situation and what the legal process taught him. It wasn't all legal jargon, but he explained to me some things to keep in mind in life and especially in this sometimes stressful juncture. It really hit home at the thought that everyone you meet is for a reason. More than that, I felt really good just hearing his story, and thats definitely the biggest thing I've learned thorough this intensive. Seeing as though I enjoyed my time in Social Security so much, I sat in with Mrs. Wilson for some pre-trial conferences. It felt like going backward a bit, seeing as though I sat in on actual hearings last week and this was the preliminary phase, but I found that a lot of my questions about the clients knowing what to say and how to say it during the hearing were answered.
In short, Mrs. Wilson explained the general things for the client to know, such as where the office was when to show up and what to bring. But then she got a bit more into the in depth aspects of it. I found it interesting how she told the client to dress casually, versus the normal professional attire required in most court hearings. The logic behind this is that the ALJ wants to see the client "as they are" and in what current state they are in. If the client gives the appearance of being put together and polished, the judge may have preconceived notions as to weather they try should be awarded social security benefits. Furthermore, Mrs. Wilson explained how to tell the story of their disability, life, and work history. I found it interesting that she didn't tell the client what to say and how to say it, but better ways it could be said in order to speak to the pain and suffering their condition has had them endure. One thing she said is that social security is one of the few parts of law where the attorney isn't doing all the talking and where the client is doing more, where they get to tel the story themselves. While today was similar to what I'd done last week, I loved getting to see what happens before a trial and the other aspects to the job that go into it before the day of. It was a good final touch to my learning on this aspect of law. I had the opportunity to go downtown to day with attorney Marilyn Brenner-Levine for a few worker's compensation hearings. As with all of the categories before i went into the courtroom, I wasn't sure what went on in the typical hearing, but I knew what the cases were like. Essentially, worker's compensation cases have a client who sues his/her place of work for lost wages and injury costs IF they were injured on the job. This is what makes it different than a personal injury case. Normally, worker's comp cases deal with factory workers or those in jobs that are typically mobile or deal with dangerous materials/machinery.
In the typical hearing, there is the defense attorney, the clients attorney (or a representative from the workplace), the claimant and the manager or boss of the claimant. The judge is an Administrative Law Judge, similar to those in social security hearings. The hearings are short and last about 20 minutes each. Mrs. Brenner-Levine had three on this particular day, with time in between for her to brief on the next one. In short, there were three cases, below is a summary of each and how they turned out: 1. middle aged man, was injured and employer didn't offer lighter work job; awarder further compensation 2. middle aged woman, trying for an appeal while injured at factory job; was not awarded compensation 3. middle aged woman, slip and fell on ice while working at TPS; judge will review for outcome All in all I liked the relaxed nature of the hearings a lot more than I thought I would. I got to speak to some of the ALJ's and hear more about their experiences, and I liked how it was similar to social security but had another attorney to argue against. It definitely played to a lot of the best things I liked about each type so far. One thing I didn't like was that not always are you arguing against an attorney, at times it could just be a workplace representative who doesn't necessarily play by the same rules a lawyer would. Additionally, there are no rules on evidence on these cases. If it helps the case, you can bring up evidence as esoteric and vague as the case allows for, which often leads to blurred lines. Lastly, it was interesting to me how the judge has to qualify "preexisting conditions" oftentimes one doesn't have any testing on an are before an injury, so how could you know for sure that it was a preexisting problem? Mrs. Brenner-Levine explained to me that the law used to be an increase in symptoms which qualified that argument, but now it has been opened up more, making it a bit more vague to prove. |
Authoraneesa shaikh, senior at maumee valley country day school Archive
Categories |