The applicant challenged my order by arguing that her ability to work after the 104-week mark should not disentitle her to an ongoing income replacement benefit. Specifically, the applicant cited 16-002000 v. Jevco Insurance[4] and 16-000082 v. Echelon General Insurance Company[5] for the proposition that it is not enough for an insured person to be able to work after the 104-week mark, but they must be able to work in a predictable and reliable fashion. The applicant also noted that the five-month position she held following the 104-week mark was significantly different from her pre-accident employment.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.