Free Motion to Reopen Case - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

, H blggnacic Lopez, [ _ _'
- -, Lista, udp C0PI‘6¤g ' F||_E|) LODGE
. _ Z, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C ERT ` _"
I 1 . FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZQN l 2
A ‘ ` g
2 mmczo LOPH , ,) NQ, gv- Gd ¤I3@R§$§,gP§g§§;g§f”T
, _ 3 PLAYl'N'I‘IF'F BY _ , AD . _
JTHE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA§),;--{F_;{ ` - "
- 5 _ - - · A -- - ¥}?**“’¥PE'PI’PION---T0 REOPENIINH- CASE. {
` ··`‘ STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND; Q); l
. .. _ ..... - IL . . -
6 SOCIHJ SECURITY AJZ 'iEAIITCN"` lAAI A " `..»` ` - "
I I ’ O; OY (6”·F//K+/iw
_ 7 mv Ar. E;
i) _
B '. ¤m·:~:m.¤.m·s _}
Q} z .
10 PLHINTFF WAS BEFORE 'IHIS GGURT,TO.i—]Q'.KE% "P§IS PEPTTTON: REOPENING THIS CASE.
h T1 HEREZARIQADIFTDPTAL DISCOVERDECD EVIDENGIESI, AIEITIONAI. FACTS ,AND EGAL ALEG-ATIO S ,
I _ T2 GONSTRUED IN NEWS LAWS IN 'IHE FEDERAL ISSUES, RELATED TO WORK ACCIBENTS, ii`. A
. 13 BECURIREIICES, PHYSICAL DISABILITIES,CONSEIGUEZ*I¥‘ES OF IRE, AN) BACK OF A-E`}.
· VI- EAL ,ATENTIONS, EXAIEIINTIONS, CURATIONS, 'I‘REAIT»£E|`N'I‘S,IN HOSPITAL CARE
_ 15 EN'PERS,TO WICH WAS OBLIGATIONS, AND RESPODTSABIIJITY OF THES DEFENIEANTS WHAT ARE
16 MENI’IONED IN 'IIISS CASE,LIKE PRIGIPLAS RESPONSIBLES TO FURNISHING ,0R IO TIE
I 'I7 AFFORZD {F 'IHIS SERVICES TO THE PLAINTIFF ,‘5fHE'N SUFFERED THIS WORK AKCIDENT,
T8 AND SUBSECUENT RECURRENGES,YEARS I(§·§,I'¤¥58,T¤'72,I¤8O,I985,I9F\¤,I9R7,I9RO,I¤93,
'IQ IQQ4-,I998B,“B00n,200R,2¤G4,A'I‘ PRESENT, AND F'UT'URE,RECURR.E}ICES IN THIHI CASE. _
2O FURH‘I'ER}JORE,TI·IIS NAMED IN THIS CASE DEIENDANTS, NEVER PA`Y`ED,'I'HES
0. 21 PHYSICAL DISAHEITYS OF THIS PLMITTIFF, LIKE NAS TO WALKING, RUE\*NIT~R},PERFOI»f ANY
{ .
Z2 PORTS ,GY`F»1NAS'I‘ICS, OR HGERCICES PHYSICAL ACTIVITY .
I 23 'JHIS MEAN WHA"? THIS DEF’ENDAH'"S, REFUSSED THE PAYMENI‘S OF MONTHLY BENEFITS, ,
A 24 LIKE CONSECUENGE OF ONE PHYSICAL DISABILITY {VIOLATING THES 42 U.S.C. 3GIa‘h seq.
25 9 S‘bat.·‘*2G ACT ESTIABLIS@ T0 THE ISSUE OF BENEFITS OF DISABLED PERSONSJN
Y 26 WORK` AGCIDENPA, WHEN `E IN TIES UNITED STATES OF AERICA,R'.T’ING ONE IEGAL ` A
RESIDENT UNDER INS.BUREAU' OF OITIZENSHIP ani I?/DFIGRATION SERVICESA-I2—6R‘5-•?I4•
. Social Sscuritv N0 52'?····61—'775O,ISSU4E.'D TO PLAINTIFF. I
Case 2:04-cv—00128—ROS Document 32 U Filed 07/24/2006 Page:1 0f03

1 PLAINTJFF REQUEST THE REOPHNING OF THIS CASE, BASED IN THE MENITONED LAW.]
2 'H·I,AND HEREBY,PLAINTIZ?F INVOKES TPB?} ,FEDERA1. ACT AMERICANS WITH
3 QDISSABIIIITIES ACT IIIJEAR I$90..TI-IIS LAT? IS RELATED TO
4 AFFOHD SERVICES. REQUIRED BY PLAI?TT1I`F,V?HAN WAS UNDER SEVERE ANDD
5 EAINFULL CON&ITIONS THE SUFEERED WEQK ACGIDENT,AND S@EGUEI‘·I' R'EURR.EN3ES•
, 6 ) __ WHEREBIQTHIS PIQAINTIEE IS TO THE PAYMENT OF ACRUED DISABILITY
7 I ,FROM THE SUFFERED WORK ACCIDENTQAND -LIKE ONE I`f.9.r@IAI.»TY RELIEEY THIS I
3 BY THIS DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFF OF THIS GOURT,ONE INJUPUTIVE I
9 {TO THE RELIEF OF THISCLAIM-,BY' THEM AMOUTTT: OF $3.,OO0,000. FROM EACH OF
.10 DEE‘ENDANTS,R.AIS}i{I) IN THIS ACTION•mIS§WAS. ONE GLASS OF SEI' AM`}
‘ 11 NEGESITY OF COMMITTIDTE TO TRIII. REQUIRE) TO THIS ACTION.
12 e‘PLAI-I‘!'l‘IFFT£E”RGES AGAINST 'IHIS D§‘ENDANTS WAS: IN'I'EI*H‘IONAL, NOT-IITETENTIGNAL,
13 `HROPE-S, NE?LIGENTS;DISCRII.€I1*?AT!IAl!.Y, IOUTTREACEOUS, IRESEGNSIBLE OF OBLIGATIONS,
14 TO ONE INSURED FERSONJTITH DISABILITIES AFTER OF ONE. SUFF
15 IWORK ACCIDENT INSIDE OF 'TEE STATE OF A.RIZ%)NA, AND OF THE UNITED STATES OF ‘ CA,
A 16 THIS CONSEGUENCE A.'RIS@ OTHER TYPE OFI SUSPIGIOUS',l£ALICZ£OUS’; AND CGTERCI E
17 LEGAL, -ILEGAL,UNE‘OUT—1DF2D,_PMB'SNL”[H'OUS ,AND PRESUPE PROSECIPIFIONS AGAINST PLAINTI J .
18 SUCH,IN VIE? OE A3)E’AT~IT2§GE,JEiFD AIUHIII THE } RESPONSAZBILITI.
19 THIS CLAIM INCLUDES ,PH'YSICAT. DISABILITY ? INJTJRT-TS, SU'FF‘ERINGS, PAINEULI. CONDI'1" N,
DWEIATFLVJ CONDITIONS EN HOSPITAL LIKE IRED,ADI'I'IO}IAL MEEIGAL TREATMENTS. \
21 PLAINT]I?'E‘,CHARGES AGAINST WAS TOO ,WRO'!*IG_G“O?3]}lTCT, AN) REFUSSTNG UPAYLIENTS OE
,22 CLAIM BY WORK INJURY DISABILTY,"’HEAT REQUESTEI! BY PLAINTIF. AND NOT RELEASES THI
23 DEB`&.¤NI‘S FROM PAYMEN'I'S OF THIS DEMA1‘ID,DA?»iAGES,INJURYS,CO!.!PLAINPS,ACTIONS,
24 CAUSES UF ACTIONS, INJUCTIVE·ORDERS.; EIB? GF CLAIM ORIJERS,FEARI1\X}S, TRIAL,
25 AYMEN'I' OF OBLIGATIONS, PAY`L{E}NT OF ANY KING, KNOW AND INKNO`?J' UNDE THE
l 26 LAWS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONAJJNDER THE FEDERAL LAWS RELATED TO THIS CASE- `
Case 2:04-cv—001‘28—ROS Document 32_ Fjled 07/24/2006 Page 2 of 3_

{-· #·‘‘ mrzdsmas 1*0`1jq·I%QI Ionsi ‘ ·
1 I I
FEI PLAINTIFF TAVE PRESENTED DIFERENT ,A.ND APPROPIILTE ,R;?LE‘fAE$T EJEDI
5 . .
I 2 [EVIDEECES TO CASEJEE TIITS I"€TGU.TDED, IIEDICAT. EKA}£INATIOE·-ES` AED EI~Z.§\.3=.{S WHAT
3 LKTAS BY INDUSTRIAL COEEEISSIOTPT OF ARIEO!_IAI,AEID ITFSURAJIZE CARRIER, WAS
4 NDQ GLEIIKIENUMBER I.C.A. Ho, 200125*7 O26S,ANYD S.C.F. AX-18334 WICH WAS IN
5 IIIES OF THIS DEFENDANTS OFFICES ,AN'D OF REFUSSEDI PRESEEIT GOPYS.
6 CONBIDER TWAT ONLY THROUGHTONE DISCOVERY ORDER ,RELEASE FILE COPYSN » }._
7 ’PLETN’£'IE'F' SHOE'! COPY OF 'I‘H'E S.C.F. ORDER DETQHD SPQZ'I4th,2005 DENIED BENEFITS Sic.
1 l , · A rt u
8 I {,·;,}‘HEBE`Hv WHEREBY,']H`IS PIAINTHF CONSIDER THIS REQUEST TO REOPEN CASE VERY
9 FESESARY To ormmn ir€:m F2-@5 zms:22-m;u¤1=¤s. I . _
10 I PLAINTIFF I~L#WE SOILEONES MEDICAL EVIDENCRS IECHJDED TO THIS ACTIO .
1 . Q · I I
11 !INGLUDES REQUEST TO UND UNIV`@FI'I"$£`_O`E‘ ARIZON}. HOSPITAL ,TUCSON,C2I36000 PATIENT
12 OFIYTIGH AREIIIPENDIHG THE AFFORDL OF THIS EVIDENCE,FRO},€ SUCH HOS§‘I'DAL.S5.c.”P1"
13 ] HERE IS TOO, THE MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC OF IUMBAR INJURY LIKE IN MIB CASE. SIG "
? 2
'I4 HERE IS TED, THE HOSPITAL KIND RECEIPT IS INCLUDED {HERE PLAINTPIFF WAS 4
15 IPLAIN'I‘IF‘F EXPOSE TIE CHEMICAL EXMJES ,RE'L!§.’[IED TO EXISTING TRAITMATIG GONDITIO .
‘ I ' SIC" K"
16 HERE IS TTD THE EXISTING TRAUMATIC COT¤TDITION,IN RESPIRATORY HAR!/I OF VIORJGZNG IN
17 VE COLD FREEZING JJITHGUT TIIES APFROPIATE FIARK GLOTHS EQUIPMENT. Sic" F"
18 ‘f¤*HEREBY,PLnI¤—1TIFF HATE DEMUSTRATHJ THE mxswzm muws RELATED TO ms
T9 ‘I GASE,AI·FD REQUEST THE REOPENING OF 'IHE SA:ME,_AE-H3 TE INJUGTIVE RELIEF} ORDER. I
ZG II PLAIETIFF PRBY THIS COORT REOPEN OF THE—CASE,ORD% ONE RELIE OF CLAIT;uI,TO `
21 THIS DIFEIIIDAIIIIITSII AND OR TI-E- PAYTFENT OF CLAIM TO THIS PLAT?-TTIFF.
-22 ESPECTE‘ULLY SUS!·II"£‘TED THIS DAY OF JUNE, YEAR SOOF, _ I
23 I A
24 { .- I Bt N ._’
Original and oop1r,maiTLod.‘·b1¤io_ Goto to: to -P’‘ · _ ‘
25 U.S. §5.s·|:1·i¤·bGouz-1; Clark, Courthouse `,Sm·1dm ’ Connor B Fg., Suite I30, _
401 West 'Ffaghington Stroot, Phoenix; Ari no 35007- 903. . · ‘
26 I.O.A. c/0 Curio J, Brouno.u,A’cty, I2'75 ‘$Io:=,·t H¢éighington,Phoonix, Arizona 350 ‘7.
State compem=a.tionIn511rauco,p.o.`¤ox 33OF%9,· Phooniic, Arizona S5O;'7• zxzqs ‘
$oci¤1 Socuritv Adminstroyion, P.·T3. `¤O9. I'?'7'75, Ba.1‘b1¥¤¤t‘¤. M¤I'V]-Bi'! · '
Case 2:04‘-cv—00128—ROS Document 32 ._FiIed 07/24/2006 Page 3 of _3

Case 2:04-cv-00128-ROS

Document 32

Filed 07/24/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00128-ROS

Document 32

Filed 07/24/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00128-ROS

Document 32

Filed 07/24/2006

Page 3 of 3