Citations: 17 B. Docket Number: Judges: William A. King, Jr. For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, the Court will deny reconsideration and will not amend the Order. The case presents an extremely troubling and all too common set of facts.
Because of the disturbing nature of the situation presented by the case, a detailed explanation of the facts is necessary. On February 19, , a chapter 13 petition was filed on the debtor's behalf by her counsel. A complaint for relief from the automatic stay was filed on July 20, by the Federal National Mortgage Association, which holds the first mortgage on the debtor's residence.
The complaint alleges that the petition was filed one 1 day before a sheriff's sale scheduled for February 20, The debtor, at the time of filing of the complaint, was allegedly seventeen 17 months in arrears on her mortgage and had failed to make payments to the trustee as required by her chapter 13 plan.
Neither the debtor nor her counsel saw fit to answer the complaint. Judgment by default was entered on August 18, Subsequently, the trustee filed a motion to dismiss the chapter 13 petition for failure to make the payments required by the plan.
This motion was filed on August 27, No answer was filed to oppose the trustee's motion. The case was dismissed on September 12, On November 18, , a new chapter 13 petition was filed by the debtor's attorney.
By the strangest coincidence, the petition was filed only two 2 days before a scheduled sheriff's sale of the debtor's property. By Order of this Court, dated November 19, , the Court ruled that the automatic stay normally imposed by the filing of a petition [2] , did not apply to the sheriff's sale scheduled for November 20, The Court determined that the Order granting relief from the stay in the adversary proceeding in the prior case was res judicata.
The Court entered an Order on November 24, directing the debtor and her counsel to show cause that the petition filed on November 18, was not filed solely for the purpose of delay as a fraud upon the Court and to show cause why debtor and her counsel should not be held in contempt of Court for their actions.
On November 30, , debtor's counsel filed a motion in opposition to the contempt and requesting that the automatic stay be re-instated and the sheriff's sale be set aside.
At the hearing on December 16, , the Court denied the motion and found counsel for the debtor, Stokes E. American LegalNet, Inc. Fill in your relationship to the child ren. List the name and date of birth DOB of each child involved in this petition. LINE 4. Fill in the other party's relationship to the child ren. LINE 5. Fill in the information regarding the date the Order that you are asking the Court to reconsider was entered and the basic terms of the Order.
You will need to attach a copy of the Order to the Petition. LINE 6. Include all the facts and circumstances that support your request. Attach additional pages if necessary. Possible reasons a judge might reconsider are listed below. The headings in each paragraph herein are for convenience of reference only and shall be of no legal effect in the interpretation of the terms hereof.
Any inconsistency between the headings used in the Agreement and the text of the paragraphs will be resolved in favor of the text. By: By: Shubh Section 4 of the Baseline Neuropsychology Test Battery and Specific Impairment Criteria for Retired NFL Football Players set forth in Exhibit A-2 of the Settlement Agreement the "Test Battery" references a "user manual" to be provided to neuropsychologists setting out the cutoff scores, criteria for identifying impairment in each cognitive domain, and statistical normative data to support the impairment criteria.
Consistent with general practices in the field of clinical neuropsychology, that user manual suggested using fully-demographically adjusted T scores as the normative reference values for interpreting the neuropsychological test scores.
Fully demographically adjusted T scores consider a person's age, sex, level of education, and race in a regression model for deriving a normative score. Instructions Given to the Working Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 The working group was instructed by the legal parties to remove race as a variable for consideration when scoring or classifying test results from the neuropsychological evaluations of retired National Football League NFL players participating in the BAP.
Summary of Recommended Changes In order to remove race as a variable from scoring the neuropsychological tests, three changes to the current system are recommended. Second, discontinue the use of fully demographically adjusted normative reference values and replace that system with normative reference values adjusted for age and education only when available, as described below. Third, raise the cutoff scores for defining low scores in a modest manner across reading levels and cognitive domains.
Both of the latter methods use race as one of many variables in a regression model e. The use of the regression models i. There are many published studies, over many years, supporting the use of a reading test for this purpose, including published studies illustrating the usefulness of using a reading test in evaluations with Black older adult Americans.
The reading score is positively correlated with neuropsychological test performance in retired NFL players, meaning that, on average, those scoring higher on the reading test obtain higher scores on other neuropsychological tests, and those scoring considerably lower on the reading test, on average, obtain lower scores on other neuropsychological tests.
For the other tests, meta-norms from Mitrushina et al. As indicated on page 20 Table 4 of the professional manual, no Black adults were included in the normative sample for that test, so the demographically adjusted T scores do not include race as a variable in norming. Therefore, these norms are identical for both racial groups and no suitable alternative norms have been identified.
This test is not included in the Mitrushina et al. Having poor reading skills, or a possible mild learning disability, is not a rationale for classifying a person in a higher reading level i. However, a clinician can use clinical judgement in cases of severe language-based learning disability i.
Handbook of normative data for neuropsychological assessment. Page 2 of 6. Specific Steps for Classifying Levels of Cognitive Impairment The specific steps illustrating the recommended changes are set out below. There are 3 tests for which the Mitrushina et al. The demographically adjusted T scores for this test do not include race as a variable in norming ii Mitrushina meta-norms for the Boston Naming Test, the Category Test, and the Controlled Oral Word Association Category Fluency Animal Naming Test include age, but not education adjustments, because education was not an important predictor of test scores in the meta-regression equations—and thus the authors did not recommend an education adjustment to the meta-norms.
The changes to the cutoffs for defining low scores were informed by statistical analyses of data from retired players who have undergone evaluations, knowledge of base rates of low scores among adults in normative samples, and clinical judgement. Slight adjustments could occur if errors are found as a result of the final verification process. Level 1 Impairment: 3 or more scores below a T score of 37 2.
Level 1. Level 2 Impairment: 3 or more scores below a T score of 32 Learning and Memory 6 test scores 1. Level 2 Impairment: 3 or more scores below a T score of 32 Visual-Perceptual 3 test scores 1. Level 1 Impairment: 3 or more scores below a T score of 39 2. Super Lawyer Daniel E.
Tort Talk Awards. Miles, Esq. Civil Litigat Timeliness of Motion for Reconsideration Reviewed Cummins, Esquire publishes this site for general informational purposes only.
Under no circumstances should you rely upon the information contained in this website without first seeking out and securing your own attorney.
0コメント