10212017Headline:

Tampa, Florida

HomeFloridaTampa

Email Tom Young Tom Young on LinkedIn Tom Young on Twitter Tom Young on Facebook Tom Young on Avvo
Tom Young
Tom Young
Attorney • (813) 251-9706

2016-2041: Claimant Must Submit Objective Third-Party Documentation That Identifies Factors Outside Control of Claimant’s Control

0 comments
The following is an Appeal Panel Decision issued pursuant to Section 6 of the BP Deepwater Horizon Economic & Property Damages Settlement Agreement and the Rules Governing the BP Appeals Process. Links may have been added to assist the reader. The original decision may be found here, as well as a glossary of BP Settlement terms.

The Settlement Program denied the BEL claim of a medical practice that provides emergency services, for failure to satisfy causation. Claimant appeals.
In order to pass causation in this case, must qualify under the Modified V-Shaped Revenue Pattern and this requires documentation identifying factors outside the control of Claimant that prevented the recovery of revenues in 2011. In an effort to satisfy this prong of the test, Claimant presented a letter from XXX identifying factors that prevented the recovery of revenues. The letter references an emergency care center which opened in 2009 close to Claimant’s office, as well as a Physician group which purchased several local practices and then sent patients to their own walk in clinics instead of Claimant’s emergency room.
Pursuant to Policy 474, a Claimant must submit objective, third party documentation that identifies factors outside the control of Claimant that prevented the recovery of revenues in 2011. A letter from XXX clearly does not qualify as objective, third party documentation. Policy 474 does provide that a document prepared by the Claimant may be used to supplement or corroborate the objective, third party documentation. However, the third party documentation which was presented here does not provide adequate indicia of factors outside of Claimant’s control that prevented the recovery of revenues in 2011.
Claimant produced the following: 1) A copy of a newspaper article from “2009” reporting on the opening of an emergency care center; 2) A document from the Florida Secretary of State evidencing a dissolution filing for in 2011; and 3) An undated list of walk-in medical centers. None of these documents prove factors outside the control of Claimant that prevented the recovery of revenues in 2011.  *** can only make inferences about what these documents purport to show with respect to the loss of revenues in 2011 but they are all less than the concrete proof needed to prove the 2nd prong of the test. The letter from is not objective, third party evidence and the objective, third party documentation does not prove much of anything.
BP also contends that Claimant did not adequately demonstrate a decline of at least 10% in the share of total revenues generated by non-local customers over the relevant period. This issue is moot where Claimant has failed to adequately identify factors preventing the recovery of revenues in 2011. The failure to satisfy this requirement of the Decline-Only Test is grounds, on its own, to justify the denial of this claim. Claimant’s appeal is dismissed.

Leave a Comment

Have an opinion? Please leave a comment using the box below.

For information on acceptable commenting practices, please visit Lifehacker's guide to weblog comments. Comments containing spam or profanity will be filtered or deleted.