Case No: G1652562

Workers' Compensation Board, Queens of New York


(Click Below Link to Download or View the Documents)

 

Summary


  We hired the nanny for housemaid from 10/7/2015 to 1/29/2016. She resigned on 1/29/2016. On 6/16/2016, she filed WCB claim saying she got injuried when she cleaned snow on 1/25/2016. She has never noticed us she got injuried. It was in March 2017, more than one year later, I got the letter from an investigator from WCB, when I got to know someone had filed a WCB case complaining injuried (Please refer to WCB Enforcement Unit Report of Investigation). And according to WCB investigator's report on 3/15/2017, investigator dialed the claimant's phone number on C3 and it was picked up by Zhen Xiu Liu's daughter stating unaware of the incident or the existing claim.

 

Chronology

    We hired the nanny for housemaid (10/7/2015)

    Said Injury when nanny cleaning snow (1/25/2016)

    Nanny resigned voluntarily (1/29/2016)

    Nanny saw doctor and took MRI (4/29/2016)

     Nanny saw doctor - Phillips Family Practice (5/6/2016)

     Nanny Filed WCB Claim (6/16/2016)

     Nanny Received Operation from Flushing Hospital Medical Center (10/28/2016)

    WCB Investigator contacted me (2/2017)

     WCB Enforcement Unit Report of Investigation (3/15/2017)

     Nanny Saw Doctor - Dr. Xu's Comprehensive Medical, PLLC (4/20/2017)

     Workers' Compensation Hearing for 15 minutes (10/26/2017)

     Nanny Saw Doctor - Dr. Xu's Comprehensive Medical, PLLC (1/11/2018)

     Workers' Compensation Hearing (1/16/2018)

     Workers' Compensation Hearing (4/5/2018)

     Workers' Compensation Hearing (6/7/2018)

 

Case Folder


     Received on 6/16/2016, Manny Filed WCB Case - C-3 form (6/16/2016)


     Received on 6/21/2016, WCB Notice of Case Assembly (6/21/2016)


     Received on 4/12/2017, WCB Enforcement Unit Report of Investigation (3/15/2017)


     Received on 4/12/2017, Nanny saw Doctor - Phillips Family Practice (5/6/2016)


     Received on 8/7/2017, Nanny Saw Doctor - Dr. Xu's Comprehensive Medical, PLLC (4/20/2017)


     Received on 10/23/2017, Nanny Received Operation from Flushing Hospital Medical Center (10/28/2016)


     Received on 10/26/2017, Workers' Compensation Hearing for 15 minutes (10/26/2017)


     Received on 1/16/2018, Workers' Compensation Hearing for 60 minutes (1/16/2018)


     Received on 1/22/2018, Nanny Saw Doctor - Dr. Xu's Comprehensive Medical, PLLC (1/11/2018)


     Received on 5/14/2018, Workers' Compensation Hearing (6/7/2018)



 

Questions & Arguments

  Dr. Xu's diagnosis conclusion (4/20/2017) served as the WCB diagnosis. However, it was made more than one year later of the injury date, and totally based on reviewing the MRI of 4/29/2016 indeed. It stated that "In my opinion, the patient's physical injuries were causally related to the work-related accident, which had occured on 01/25/2016 ...". Is it that reasonable that a doctor can conclude such by merely reviewing a MRI of one year ago.

  The nanny has not mentioned to me anything of injury or any abnormity on or after Jan 25, 2016, although we had a lot conversation after the day. She has not asked for sick or mentioned to me she needed to see a doctor. She continued work as usual without anything abnormal, and she left the job voluntarily on 1/29/2016. By the way, she is of talkative and extrovert personality in my opinion.

  The medical report in case folder showed the date when she saw doctor and got MRI was on 4/29/2016, i.e., three months later after said injury. Was there anything abnormal or accident happened during the three months?

  The primary job for the nanny was to take care of an eight-year-old child. In case the child wears less clothes in cold weather, I have printed out a list on the table about which clothes to wear for each specific temperature range. And I have installed thermometer sensor outside to measure accurately the temperature outside. The thermometer can receive the signal from outside and show the temperature. It was just on the table, however, she has not followed it and still let the child wear less in the cold weather for a few times. I have quarrelled with her for that for a few time. I recall I have quarrelled with her for the matter again during the last week she worked here, which was the primary reason she left the work voluntarily.

  According to medical doctor's opinion, the accident of tearing tendon completely will cause the patient not being able to lift her arm immediately because of tendon broken, while after Jan 25, she continued cooking, cleaning, and helping the child have bath smoothly. Nothing appeared abnormal, nor she had any complain or intended to evade doing a duty. In kitchen, some kitchen ware and condiment are store in upper cupboard, one have to lift her arm to get hold of it. Therefore, if she was really injured by an accident instead of chronic strain by her age, the accident should not occur at that time or at our home. There are three months after she left our home and before she visited doctor.

 

Comments

  The nanny resigned on 1/29/2016 for a new job. It's not clear if she started the new job immediately after resign, i.e., on 2/1/2016. The new job was for some institution instead of private nanny work. Thus, she got paid by check rather than cash which is trackable from her bank account. Therefore, when and where did she start the new job is also trackable.




 

  On January 22, 2018, the nanny filed another case at New York State Supreme Court by fabriacting facts against me (Please refer to below documents). In the complaint, it stated that the nanny went to school to pick up the child at 2:20pm on daily basis and the child need spoon-feeding. The fact is an after-school driver picked up the child from primary school round 2:40pm, and sent him to home round 6:50pm after three hours' study. The Principal of after-school has written a witness letter as evidence (please refer to below link), and the payment check from bank records could prove as well. The child is eight years old then, a grade three student of New York City's Gift & Talent class. It's not credible that the child needed spoon feeding at his age.




Index No: 718051/2017

Supreme Court of New York State


(Click Below Link to Download or View the Documents)

 

Case Folder


     Received on 1/22/2016, Complaint


     Submitted on 2/12/2018, Answer


     Submitted on 2/12/2018, Witness from the Principal of after school




 

Contact