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)
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?