Darlynn v. Department of the Air Force et al

Filing 56

ORDER Granting 55 Stipulation to Extend Stay. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 12/14/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

Download PDF
Case 2:17-cv-02800-JAD-VCF Document 56 Filed 12/14/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 DILLON G. COIL, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 11541 WILLIAM T. MARTIN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 2534 GGRM LAW FIRM 2770 S. Maryland Pkwy., Ste. 100 Las Vegas, NV 89109 Phone: 702. 384.1616 ~ Fax: 702.384.2990 Email: dcoil@ggrmlawfirm.com wmartin@ggrmlawfirm.com 7 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 12 JUANITTA DARLYNN, Case No.: Plaintiff, v. 13 14 2:17-cv-02800-JAD-VCF DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, ET. AL., Defendants. 15 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND STAY (Sixth Request) ECF No. 55 16 17 18 Plaintiff, Juanitta Darlynn (hereafter, “Plaintiff”), and Defendant, Department of the Air Force, et al. (hereafter, “Defendant”), by and through their respective counsel, stipulate and agree as follows: 19 20 1. Plaintiff has an open workers compensation case and in connection therewith has requested two Independent Medical Examinations (IME). 21 2. The insurer never responded to Plaintiff’s initial request for an IME and on 22 September 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed an appeal of the defacto denial of the request for 23 an IME. That appeal was set for hearing on February 23, 2021 and at the hearing, the 24 Hearing Officer ordered the workers compensation insurer to approve and schedule 25 the IME. The Order relating to that hearing was dated March 10, 2021. However, 26 neither party has been able to find a medical provider to perform that IME. 27 28 3. On May 18, 2021 Plaintiff sent the insurer another request for an IME with Dr. Thomas Shang. The insurer never responded to Plaintiff’s request for that IME and on June 22, 2021 Plaintiff filed an appeal of the defacto denial of the request for an 1 Case 2:17-cv-02800-JAD-VCF Document 56 Filed 12/14/21 Page 2 of 2 1 IME. That appeal was originally set to be heard by a Hearing Officer on September 2 28, 2021 but the parties stipulated to waive the hearing before the Hearing Officer 3 4 5 level and proceed directly to the Appeals Officer level. The Appeals Officer hearing was originally set for November 8, 2021 but was reset to March 29, 2021. See Exhibit 1 attached hereto. 4. Plaintiff’s 5th Request for Stay (Document 54) noted Plaintiff’s workers 6 compensation attorney was trying to resolve Plaintiff’s workers compensation case 7 by having the employer’s counsel stipulate to Plaintiff undergoing a Permanent 8 Partial Disability (PPD) evaluation during which she would be evaluated, and her 9 injuries apportioned. However, to date, those efforts have stalled. 10 11 12 13 14 15 5. The results of the IME and/or PPD will be important to how potential future proceedings regarding this matter will be conducted. 6. The parties have agreed to extend the stay regarding this matter an additional 150 days (until May 12, 2022 to allow sufficient time following the March 29, 2022 hearing for the workers compensation case to proceed). This is the sixth request to extend the stay in this matter and the extension is not requested for the purpose of delay or to cause undue prejudice to any party. 16 17 DATED this 10th day of December, 2021. DATED this 10th day of December, 2021. 18 GGRM LAW FIRM 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /s/ William T. Martin, Esq. /s/ Troy K. Flake, Esq. ___________________________________ DILLON G. COIL, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 11541 WILLIAM T. MARTIN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 2534 2770 S. Maryland Pkwy., Ste. 100 Las Vegas, NV 89109 Attorneys for Plaintiff _____________________________________ TROY K. FLAKE, ESQ. Assistant United States Attorney 501 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 1100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Attorney for the United States IT IS SO ORDERED. _________________________________ U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey Dated: December 14, 2021 2

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?