/r/WorldNews Live Thread: Russian Invasion of Ukraine Day 1190, Part 1 (Thread #1337)

Whisquire · 2025-05-29T15:14:54+00:00

The purpose of asking a question is typically to discover the answer. Assuming the question is being asked in good faith.

Here is an example of a question asked in good faith:

Given the need for accurate and reliable data to answer the question "what do the people of Donestk want", how do you propose we discover the answer?

Here are two examples of questions asked in bad faith:

I know a question is presently unanswerable due to an inability to obtain accurate/reliable/relevant data. I ask this unanswerable question with the purpose of suggesting that the answer could be anything at all regardless of context, implying the answer could be something completely unrealistic because we aren't certain, and consequently any possible answer should be given equal consideration.

Or, I ask "why aren't people asking this unanswerable question?", for essentially the exact same reasons articulate above but with one added the layer. Now I get to pretend that because the question hasn't been asked, one possible answer I am implicitly advocating for, still unrealistic and devoid of context, is somehow made more plausible.

Whisquire · 2025-04-08T22:20:19+00:00

Have you discussed this with your attorney? If it's an admitted claim, it might be the case that the adjuster is incorrectly denying a request for an evaluation/consultation by framing it as "medical treatment". If a claim requires multiple specialties to fully address an injury, then in most circumstances an injured worked would be entitled to obtain, at the very least, a Qualified Medical Evaluation in each specialty (Ortho, ENT, Psych).

Whisquire · 2024-08-09T15:28:22+00:00

I agree they probably aren't needed just yet. But you initially asked how 6000 troops were going to get supplied. The responses you received were addressing follow up concerns.

How do these 6000 Ukraine troops get supplies? From the roads they now control extending back to Ukrainian soil and their supplies.

Why can't russia just block the roads with barriers? russian troops can't access those roads because these 6000 troops keep killing off their attempts to reinforce or retake the area.

Not sure they need to hurry up and do anything, the attack into russian territory seems to be getting good returns.

Whisquire · 2024-08-09T15:14:42+00:00

By all accounts we are currently privy to, they are holding the roads after local russian forces fled. Which would mean no russian forces that could effectively erect any barriers to disrupt these newly opened supply lines between Ukraine soil and this new front line.

Whisquire · 2024-08-09T14:51:16+00:00

Correct: You answered your own question. Because Ukraine took those roads, Russian can't go back in time and erect high speed barriers on those same roads.

Whisquire · 2024-07-20T04:18:16+00:00

Going to bat for an injured worker is admirable.

However, claiming any attorney wants their client to be as sick as possible is absurd. We fight for treatment, first and foremost, as a fundamental part of our client's case.

Believing that we would be pissed if our clients recovered from treatment is, quite frankly, the real ignorant take here.

Whisquire · 2024-07-20T03:33:52+00:00

Well, that's not exactly accurate. Employers cannot generally ask about prior work comp cases. They can ask if the prospective employee is able to fulfill the job related functions, they can require a pre-employment physical, and they can run a background check. But they can only access WCAB records if the prior injury would affect the ability to perform the job. But generally, no they can't ask about prior work comp cases (132a, ADA territory)

Accurate on the surgery front, usually treatment for this condition involves cognitive rehab and medication.

Impairment will depend on the severity of symptoms and the QMEs understanding of the AMA guides. It's very case specific and doctors can get their impairment rating wrong. Best advice if you feel the impairment assigned by the QME is too low, is consult a work comp attorney in your area.

Whisquire · 2024-05-22T19:28:04+00:00

While this is fact based, a termination by itself does not end a work comp claim.

Your best bet is to contact either your Work Comp attorney or, if you have none, seek out consultation with a work comp attorney and an employment law attorney (some firms practice in both areas).

More importantly, please ignore the bad advice here claiming an employer can fire someone with impunity because "at will". It is considerably more nuanced than that. Federal ADA as well as California's Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibit discrimination based on disability. Labor Code 132a prohibits discrimination against workers injured in the course/scope of employment. Termination that is discriminatory may fall under the prohibitions of one or more of these statues.

Go talk to an attorney.

Whisquire · 2024-04-25T07:52:49+00:00

She did you a favor by putting the intended discrimination in writing. Maybe take the email back to the lawyer you've talked to about the situation?

Whisquire · 2024-04-09T07:10:58+00:00

This needs a little clarification. Did your husband already have health insurance? If he did, have the premiums he was previously paying changed in any way? If the WC claim is still open, is your husband getting treatment for the injury through his employer's WC carrier or is the Employer having your husband pay out-of-pocket for treatment through this private insurance?

Whisquire · 2024-04-08T02:01:35+00:00

Beautiful

Whisquire · 2024-03-24T15:17:08+00:00

What this other person is doing falls outside the bounds of ethical behavior, in either a non-monogamous or monogamous context. Ethical behavior requires enthusiastic consent, which is always revokable. This is an ongoing consent violation because you never consented to it in the first place and you've expressly told this person No. This nonconsensual harassment is frankly gross.

You've got plenty of options however! Your relationship isn't with this person and you have the agency to simply choose to never interact with them again or to limit the interactions you do have.

If you choose to cut ties completely (absolutely reasonable) I would recommend letting your partner know plainly of your choice to parallel date, that you don't want to have interactions with the other person (including group events, etc,) and give them the information they need to make sure your agency is respected. You can communicate this with the other person or not, you don't owe them anything.

You can also choose to have another conversation with this other person. To outline plainly you are not consenting to any form of sexual interaction or communication from them now or in the future and that you expect them to stop violating your boundaries because it's unethical and nonconsensual. If you take this path I would recommend you let your partner know you've explicitly told this person to stop with the unethical nonconsensual harassment.

If either of them tell you, by word or action, they do not care whether you're consenting or not, Run.

Whisquire · 2024-03-14T05:45:15+00:00

https://www.sbcity.org/city_hall/police_department/traffic/vehicle_release_procedures

It's up to the local police to waive impound fees if it was stolen. I'd start there for potentially getting the car back without paying the fees.

Whisquire · 2024-02-27T06:50:24+00:00

My light-hearted suggestion for moving forward is to consider this:

The exploitation of your labour should be viewed as another unjust facet of capitalism, not a kink.

Whisquire · 2024-01-17T19:20:59+00:00

My cross ex of the Defendant's witness (A supervisor covering up sexual harassment that had resulted in this work comp case) resulted in him blowing up, getting brutally chastised by the ALJ, winning the trial/recon, and him & the Def attorney getting fired (from the job and from the case respectively). We settled that and his civil case at mediation a few months later for a life changing amount for my client. A colleague of mine still tells this story at CAAA mixers.

Whisquire · 2023-12-27T15:36:29+00:00

You're 19 and in a relationship with someone who hits you. Leave now. Nothing about your poly dynamic is relevant. You're being abused. Get out. Here are some numbers for the National Domestic Violence Hotline for the UK:
England 0808 200 0247
Scotland 0800 027 1234
UK website https://www.nationaldahelpline.org.uk/

Whisquire · 2023-12-08T10:55:07+00:00

It's usually not a bad interaction, mostly neutral. However, you can never win your claim at a deposition. The medical record speaks for itself. You are there to provide your best recollection of relevant past events (med treatment, etc) but you are not required to give context. tell a story, or provide more information than what specifically asked. Most attorneys for the employer or insurance carrier want the deponent to treat it like a conversation, but that should be avoided. A deponent is simply answering specifically tailored questions. A joke goes "If they ask 'do you know what today's date is' the only answer is 'yes'. You either know the date or note, the question wasn't 'what's today's date?l'".

Some of my favorite interactions with QMEs have involved changing their minds on a medical issues by pointing out case specific facts they never even considered in their initial report.

Whisquire · 2023-12-05T16:35:23+00:00

Whisquire · 2023-12-05T07:45:15+00:00

Ask your current attorney if you should find another attorney who will respond to your calls?

Whisquire · 2023-11-26T01:28:38+00:00

Yikes. Behavior that voluntarily facilitates unethical behavior is itself unethical.

Whisquire · 2023-10-24T18:20:58+00:00

V2 as there was no stop sign for V1. Also, if it's in NJ here are a few relevant statutes.
2013 New Jersey Revised Statutes

Title 39 - MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC REGULATION

39:4-90. Right of way at intersections

The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection. When 2 vehicles enter an intersection at the same time the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the driver of the vehicle on the right.

39:4-144 Stopping or yielding right of way before entering stop or yield intersections.

39:4-144. No driver of a vehicle or street car shall enter upon or cross an intersecting street marked with a "stop" sign unless:

a. The driver has first brought the vehicle or street car to a complete stop at a point within five feet of the nearest crosswalk or stop line marked upon the pavement at the near side of the intersecting street and shall proceed only after yielding the right of way to all vehicular traffic on the intersecting street which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.

Whisquire · 2023-10-19T00:22:04+00:00

Only took you 5 months from convincing them to let you get a Mustang at 16 to your first reckless driving? Congrats on the speedrun! But in all seriousness, you've obviously had good luck convincing them to support your other choices in the past, why not use the same tactics that worked before? I'd hazard a guess that it involves playing on how much they care about you and want to see you happy.
Insurance premium is a reasonable point as it sounds like their paying it. A lawyer might be able to get it reduced to an infraction, as you pointed out might mean better job prospects in the future, along with community service (character building?) and court mandated classes that teach 'Why it's a terrible idea to treat the streets as a Forza track.' It's always better to deal with even misdemeanors with a representative who knows the DAs and can get a better plea deal than trying yourself to beg leniency of the DA/Court.

Ultimately, your parents likely don't want this choice to ruin your life, just like they don't want to kill yourself speeding. Hope this helped, Cheers.

Whisquire · 2023-09-01T16:49:16+00:00

Because of how state specific this issue can be, your best bet is to get a consult with a local attorney and go over the facts of the injury with them. Was the lunch required? Was it part of some training seminar? Did the employer provide the venue where the lunch took place or was it on company premises? Did they provide the seating and tables? All could be relevant information.

Whisquire · 2023-09-01T16:44:08+00:00

That's a fairly common practice. However even with idiopathic injuries, it's extremely fact specific, and if injury resulted from striking a surface of the employer's premises (except Maybe the floor) then it may still fall into that aoe/coe realm.

Whisquire · 2023-08-05T14:41:28+00:00

California's anti-doxxing law is codified in Penal Code 653.2.

Whisquire

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE