Montez, et al v. Romer, et al
ORDER Re: Claimant Wellman E. Gibson (Claim No. 03-173). Claimant Wellman Gibsons 3617 Objection to Amended Final Order of Special Master is OVERRULED. The 3512 Amended Final Order of Special Master is AFFIRMED. The 3824 Motion for Immediate Ruling on Appeal of Amended Final Order is denied as moot, by Judge John L. Kane on 09/28/2009.(wjc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge John L. Kane Civil Action No. 92-cv-00870-JLK
JESSE MONTEZ, et al. Plaintiffs, as representatives of themselves and all others similarly situated in the class action,
BILL OWENS, et al, Defendants. Re: Claimant Wellman E. Gibson, Claim number 03-173 ORDER Kane, J. This matter is before the court on Claimant Wellman Gibson's Objection to Amended Final Order of Special Master (doc. #3617). I have reviewed the Amended Final Order, and the objection, as well as the numerous other filings of Mr. Gibson and rule as follows: In a detailed and well considered ruling, the Special Master found that the while the claimant does suffer from chronic low back and neck pain, he is not a mobility disabled person as defined under the terms of the remedial plan. The standard of review is abuse of discretion and no such abuse was found. The rulings of the Special Master are based on the evidence and the law was properly applied. Because the claimant failed to prove he was disabled as defined by the Settlement Agreement, dismissal of his claim was appropriate. The Objection is OVERRULED. The Amended Final Order of Special Master (doc. #3512) is AFFIRMED. The Motion for Immediate Ruling on Appeal of Amended Final Order (doc. #3824),
is denied as moot. Dated: September 28, 2009 BY THE COURT: s/John L. Kane JOHN L. KANE, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Service of this order shall be made via NEF, with standard mailing to Mr. Gibson.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?