Category Archives: Courts

Thrivent Financial vs Perez Department of Labor Acosta DOL, Status of lawsuits, Defense of alternative dispute resolution with mandated arbitration

Thrivent Financial vs Perez Department of Labor Acosta DOL, Status of lawsuits, Defense of alternative dispute resolution with mandated arbitration

“The MDRP is the sole means for presenting and resolving grievances, complaints, or disputes between Members, insureds, certificate owners or beneficiaries and Thrivent or Thrivent’s directors, officers, agents and employees. The MDRP reflects Thrivent’s Christian belief system and strives to preserve Members’ fraternal relationship.”…Thrivent v. Perez Sept. 29, 2016

“Thrivent contends that its commitment to individual arbitration is ‘”important to the membership because it reflects Thrivent’s Christian Common Bond, helps preserve members’ fraternal relationships, and avoids protracted and adversarial litigation that could undermine Thrivent’s core mission.’”…Thrivent v. Acosta Nov. 3, 2017

“pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”…NAIC, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016

 

From Bloomberg  Sept. 29, 2016.

“Thrivent Financial for Lutherans is accusing the Department of Labor of exceeding its statutory authority by attempting, with its new fiduciary rule, to force all disputes into federal court rather than allowing for alternative dispute resolution methods (Thrivent Financial for Lutherans v. Perez, D. Minn., 0:16-cv-03289, complaint filed 9/29/16).

Thrivent’s lawsuit, filed Sept. 29 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, takes aim at the rule’s “best interest contract” (BIC) exemption”

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/employee-benefits/thrivent-financial-joins-fray-in-challenging-dols-fiduciary-rule?context=article-related

From the lawsuit.

“Thrivent’s Member Dispute Resolution Program
42. Thrivent’s MDRP is incorporated into all of Thrivent’s fraternal insurance contracts through the open contract provision by which Thrivent’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws are incorporated into all Thrivent insurance contracts, as required under state law. The MDRP Bylaw was adopted by Thrivent’s Member-elected Board of Directors as a part of Thrivent’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws in 1999 (at which time Thrivent was known as AAL). In so doing, Thrivent’s Board of Directors determined that the MDRP is in the best interests of Thrivent’s Membership.

43. The MDRP Bylaw, which is Section 11 of Thrivent’s Bylaws, requires binding, mandatory arbitration for any Member disputes with Thrivent. Section 11 “applies to all past, current and future benefit certificates, members, insureds, certificate owners, beneficiaries and the Society. It applies to all claims, actions, disputes and grievances of any kind or nature whatsoever. It includes, but is not limited to, claims based on breach of benefit contract[.]” Bylaws, § 11(b). “No lawsuits or any other actions may be brought for any claims or disputes covered by” Section 11. Id. § 11(c).

44. The MDRP is the sole means for presenting and resolving grievances, complaints, or disputes between Members, insureds, certificate owners or beneficiaries and Thrivent or Thrivent’s directors, officers, agents and employees. The MDRP reflects Thrivent’s Christian belief system and strives to preserve Members’ fraternal relationship.”

“47. A key benefit of the MDRP is that it preserves the fraternal relationship between Thrivent and its Members by avoiding adversarial litigation that could threaten to undermine the organization’s core mission. Thrivent’s Bylaws provide that no lawsuits or other actions are permitted for claims or disputes covered by the MDRP. Thrivent’s MDRP provides for resolution of disputes on an individual basis, involving Thrivent and the Members. Representative or class actions are not permitted under the MDRP Bylaw, which provides that “no disputes may be brought forward in a representative group or on behalf of or against any ‘class’ of persons, and the disputes of multiple members, insureds, certificate owners or beneficiaries (other than immediate family) may not be joined together for purposes of these procedures.” See Bylaws, § 11(e).
48. The MDRP is consistent with Thrivent’s fraternal nature, consistent with the Christian belief system of its Members, and reflects the careful balancing between Thrivent’s and its Members’ desire for a prompt, fair and efficient resolution of disputes, on the one hand, and the protection of the interests of all Members on the other. As such, the MDRP is an integral part of Thrivent’s governance structure. Experience has shown that the MDRP not only provides a fair and efficient process for dispute resolution, but is also in the best interest of Members.”

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Thrivent_Financial_for_Lutherans_v_Perez_et_al_Docket_No_016cv032?1552582945

DOL temporarily stopped enforcing anti-arbitration provision.

“Thrivent Financial for Lutherans convinced a federal judge in Minnesota to temporarily stop the Labor Department from enforcing the fiduciary rule’s anti-arbitration provision against the nonprofit financial entity.

Thrivent showed the threat of irreparable harm to its business model, both now and in the future, was sufficient to have its request for a preliminary injunction granted, Judge Susan Richard Nelson held Nov. 3 (Thrivent Fin. for Lutherans v. Acosta, 2017 BL 396118, D. Minn., No. 0:16-cv-03289-SRN-DTS, order granting preliminary injunction 11/3/17″

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/employee-benefits/thrivent-financial-wins-battle-over-labor-dept-arbitration-ban?context=article-related

Status report January 2, 2018.

“While the administrative process continues forward, it is not yet complete. On November 29, 2017, the Department published in the Federal Register a final rule extending the transition period and delay of applicability dates for the relevant prohibited transaction exemptions from January 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019. See 82 Fed. Reg. 56545 (Nov. 29, 2017). The Department believes that this administrative delay will provide the Department time to complete its review of the underlying Fiduciary Rule and related exemptions and its intended proposal of “a new streamlined class exemption.” Id. at 56548. The Department believes that both its review and any proposed changes can be implemented before July 1, 2019. See id. at 56552 (explaining the Department’s belief that the additional time “is sufficient to complete review of the new information in the record and to implement changes to the Fiduciary Rule and/or PTEs, if any, including opportunity for notice and comment and coordination with other regulatory agencies”) ”

https://www.dolfiduciaryrule.com/portalresource/ThriventvPerez2018-01-02ECF112JointStatusReport.pdf

Status report July 2, 2018.

“Pursuant to the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 3, 2017, the parties submit this joint status report to address whether a continued stay of proceedings is necessary. The parties agree that a continued stay of proceedings is appropriate and anticipate providing a subsequent report to the Court on September 4, 2018.

In its Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the “implementation and enforcement of the BIC Exemption’s anti-arbitration condition against Thrivent . . . until the conclusion of this litigation or such time as the Court so orders.” ECF No. 111 at 19. The Court also stayed the case, concluding that “[s]taying this matter will allow the administrative process to fully develop, possibly resolving this dispute, and thereby promoting judicial economy.””

https://www.napa-net.org/sites/napa-net.org/files/uploads/thrivent-dol-status-report.pdf

A status report for September 2018 has not been located.

However, the following suggests the Department of Labor is continuing to work on the “Fiduciary Rule and Prohibited Transaction Exemptions.”

RIN Data

DOL/EBSA RIN: 1210-AB82 Publication ID: Fall 2018
Title: Fiduciary Rule and Prohibited Transaction Exemptions
Abstract:The Department of Labor in 1975 issued a regulation defining who is “fiduciary” under section 3(21)(A)(ii) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) as a result of giving investment advice for a fee or other compensation.  On April 8, 2016, the Department replaced the 1975 regulation with a new regulatory definition.  The new regulatory definition was vacated in toto in Chamber of Commerce v. Department of Labor, 885 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2018).  The Department is considering regulatory options in light of the Fifth Circuit opinion.
Agency: Department of Labor(DOL) Priority: Other Significant
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Stage
Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No
EO 13771 Designation: Deregulatory
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined     (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations.)
Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1002 (ERISA sec. 3(21))    29 U.S.C. 1108 (ERISA sec. 408)
Legal Deadline:  None
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite
Request for Information (RFI) 07/06/2017 82 FR 31278
RFI Comment Period End 08/08/2017
Final Rule 09/00/2019

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201810&RIN=1210-AB82

How will this play out? Who knows.

The NAIC in 2016 stated: “pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”

Hopefully justice will prevail.

***  Update Mar 15, 2019  ***

According to a USDOJ attorney who worked on the lawsuit, it has ended.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Advertisements

Binding arbitration game is rigged against customers, New analysis of almost 9000 arbitration cases confirms biased against consumers, Incentives to slant toward the business

Binding arbitration game is rigged against customers, New analysis of almost 9000 arbitration cases confirms biased against consumers, Incentives to slant toward the business

“pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”…NAIC, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016

“Companies don’t want to go to court because it puts them on a level playing field. Courts are ruled by law, legal precedent, and legal discovery, which allows litigants to obtain information and evidence from their opponents or from third parties. Discovery is a privilege in arbitration, but not a right. Arbitrators can’t enforce subpoenas, meaning you have to file a lawsuit just to get a third party or a piece of information into the hearing. In open court, you don’t have to jump through nearly as many hoops. Further, judgments in court are often more favorable to the consumer, both in the rate of success and the dollar amount of judgments.”…North Carolina Consumers Council

“Thrivent contends that its commitment to individual arbitration is ‘”important to the membership because it reflects Thrivent’s Christian Common Bond, helps preserve members’ fraternal relationships, and avoids protracted and adversarial litigation that could undermine Thrivent’s core mission.’”…Thrivent v. Acosta Nov. 3, 2017

 

From Stanford Business March 8, 2019.

“Why the Binding Arbitration Game Is Rigged against Customers

A new study documents how companies shop for sympathetic arbitrators, and how the arbitrators compete for their business.”

“It’s the “mandatory arbitration” clause, and it’s in contracts that cover trillions of dollars of business. In the event you have a dispute with the company, it says, you agree in advance to surrender your right to sue and to submit your grievance to a supposedly neutral private arbitrator.

Almost every financial firm insists on mandatory arbitration, but so do legions of businesses in other realms: AT&T and Verizon, Amazon and Apple, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, even Spotify and Shazam.

Now, a new analysis of almost 9,000 arbitration cases from the securities industry confirms what many have long suspected: The system is biased against consumers — and not just because big companies have more money to spend on lawyers.

When it comes to arbitration, the study finds, companies have a big information advantage in fishing for arbitrators who are likely to rule in their favor.

Making matters worse, the arbitrators themselves know that being pro-company in one case greatly increases their chances of being picked for future cases.

An Incentive to Slant

“This is not like having judges, who get paid the same no matter what happens,” says Stanford Graduate School of Business finance professor Amit Seru, who collaborated on the study with Mark Egan at Harvard Business School and Gregor Matvos at the University of Texas at Austin. “Here, you only get paid if you’re selected as an arbitrator. They have incentives to slant toward the business side, because they know that those who don’t do so won’t get picked. Everyone knows what’s happening.”

In their study, the researchers scrutinized thousands of customer disputes with stockbrokers and investment advisors. The data came from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, which oversees the industry’s arbitration process.

The researchers began by confirming that some arbitrators are measurably more business-friendly than others. Comparing cases on an apples-to-apples basis, the researchers estimated that business-friendly arbitrators awarded customers about 12% less money than their more pro-consumer counterparts. On an average case, that equates to about $90,000.

That was just the start, however. Even though the list from which arbitrators are picked is random, pro-business arbitrators were about 40% more likely to be chosen, so their bias had a disproportionate impact. If the arbitrators had been picked purely at random, the researchers estimated, the average award to each customer would have been $50,000 higher.”

Read more:

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/why-binding-arbitration-game-rigged-against-customers

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Hillary Clinton and  State Department collusion to keep her missing emails secret?, Judge Royce Lamberth memo, “Colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton”

Hillary Clinton and  State Department collusion to keep her missing emails secret?, Judge Royce Lamberth memo, “Colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton”

“I’ve heard witness after witness tell me that the only thing we missed was external e-mail, and now you’re telling me for the first time all of that testimony was wrong.”…Judge Royce Lamberth, Oct 2000, Clinton White House emails

“Hillary: “If you want to talk about real evil, it’s her””…David Schippers

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

From the Washington Examiner.

“Judge suggests Justice, State colluded to protect Hillary Clinton in email scandal”

“A federal judge has raised speculation that Hillary Rodham Clinton and her State Department “colluded” to keep her missing emails secret from the public and courts, an escalation of scrutiny into Obama-era scandal.

Senior District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth in a new memo also called the Clinton email affair “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

In it, he demanded that State and Justice work with Judicial Watch, which has sued in the case, to develop an evidence seeking schedule into whether Clinton sought to avoid the federal Freedom of Information Act by using a private email system in her New York home.

Lamberth, Judicial Watch issued a statement that also highlighted the judge’s concerns with how the current administration is handling the case.

“The historic court ruling raises concerns about the Hillary Clinton email scandal and government corruption that millions of Americans share,” said Judicial Watch Tom Fitton. “Judicial Watch looks forward to conducting careful discovery into the Clinton email issue and we hope the Justice Department and State Department recognize Judge Lamberth’s criticism and help, rather than obstruct, this court-ordered discovery,” he added.”

“… his [President Barack Obama’s] State and Justice Departments fell far short. So far short that the court questions, even now, whether they are acting in good faith. Did Hillary Clinton use her private email as Secretary of State to thwart this lofty goal [Obama announced standard for transparency]? Was the State Department’s attempt to settle this FOIA case in 2014 an effort to avoid searching – and disclosing the existence of – Clinton’s missing emails? And has State ever adequately searched for records in this case?

***

At best, State’s attempt to pass-off its deficient search as legally adequate during settlement negotiations was negligence born out of incompetence. At worst, career employees in the State and Justice Departments colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court.”

Read more:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/judge-suggests-justice-state-colluded-to-protect-hillary-clinton-in-email-scandal

Judge Lamberth Memo.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2014cv1242-54

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Thrivent new employee dispute resolution mandate?, Effective January 1, 2019?, Citizen Wells breaking news?, Teresa Rasmussen new Thrivent CEO October 2018

Thrivent new employee dispute resolution mandate?, Effective January 1, 2019?, Citizen Wells breaking news?, Teresa Rasmussen new Thrivent CEO October 2018

“Thrivent contends that its commitment to individual arbitration is ‘”important to the membership because it reflects Thrivent’s Christian Common Bond, helps preserve members’ fraternal relationships, and avoids protracted and adversarial litigation that could undermine Thrivent’s core mission.’”…Thrivent v. Acosta Nov. 3, 2017

“pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”…NAIC, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016

“Companies don’t want to go to court because it puts them on a level playing field. Courts are ruled by law, legal precedent, and legal discovery, which allows litigants to obtain information and evidence from their opponents or from third parties. Discovery is a privilege in arbitration, but not a right. Arbitrators can’t enforce subpoenas, meaning you have to file a lawsuit just to get a third party or a piece of information into the hearing. In open court, you don’t have to jump through nearly as many hoops. Further, judgments in court are often more favorable to the consumer, both in the rate of success and the dollar amount of judgments.”…North Carolina Consumers Council

 

 

Has Thrivent Financial implemented a new employee dispute resolution mandate similar to their MDRP dispute resolution mandated for members since 1999?

If so, why is there no news of this until now on the internet or Thrivent’s website?

Was this supposed to be kept secret?

Did someone inadvertently place this on their website where it got on the internet and was subsequently “rectified”, scrubbed?

A lot of questions have been raised.

Teresa Rasmussen, formerly general counsel and a president at Thrivent became CEO in October.

Is this tied to her?

Did this evolve from Thrivent’s lawsuits against the Department of Labor?

Was this lawsuit a catalyst?

“Executive sues Thrivent, saying he was fired because he is black”

http://eachstorytold.com/2018/05/26/thrivent-executive-fired-gregory-m-smith-lawsuit-says-he-was-fired-because-he-is-black-represented-by-attorney-clayton-halunen-we-are-going-to-get-rid-of-that-black-piece-of-shit/

The following link was scrubbed.

https://www.thrivent.com/privacy-and-security/files/Employee-Dispute-Resolution-Program.pdf

WE CAN’T FIND YOUR PAGE

You may have used an out-of-date link, bookmarked a page that has moved or typed the address (URL) incorrectly.

To find the information you are looking for, use the site navigation, visit our homepage, or use the site search.

Nothing was found by searching on their website or the internet.

However, this was found in cache:

This is Google’s cache of https://www.thrivent.com/privacy-and-security/dispute-resolution-program.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Nov 12, 2018 11:25:51 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ESWyoGuIC10J:https://www.thrivent.com/privacy-and-security/dispute-resolution-program.html+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

The following was found under the FAQ section:

  • Why is Thrivent introducing the Thrivent Dispute Resolution Program?
    • • Thrivent has had a successful Member Dispute Resolution Program in place for 19 years, and now we are providing our workforce with a similar dispute resolution program that is:
      • Neutral.
      • Timely.
      • Cost-effective.
    • Introducing this program puts us in line with many Fortune 500 companies. According to the Economic Policy Institute, 55% of U.S. employees have agreed to arbitration agreements.
  • When does the program take effect?

    Current employees and field sales members must sign their agreements via DocuSign by December 31, 2018, and the program takes effect on January 1, 2019.

  • Am I obligated to use the Thrivent Dispute Resolution Program instead of filing a lawsuit?

    Yes. Thrivent provides the Dispute Resolution Program as the exclusive means to resolve workplace disputes. By contracting with, or accepting and continuing employment with Thrivent, you agree to resolve all work-related disputes within the rules of the Thrivent Dispute Resolution Program. This agreement is binding on Thrivent, its employees and independent field sales members. Workplace disputes not resolved through Workforce Relations, Code of Conduct, the initial appeal or mediation must be arbitrated under the rules of the Thrivent Dispute Resolution Program.

What if I don’t sign the agreement?

Because agreeing to a Thrivent Dispute Resolution Program is a condition of employment for employees and condition of contract for field sales members, employment/contracts will not be continued for anyone who does not agree to the terms of the program. Employees and field sales members who choose not to sign the agreement will not be eligible for any type of severance or transitional pay.

These agreements are binding on both Thrivent, its employees and field sales members. Workplace disputes not resolved by mutual agreement must be arbitrated under the Thrivent Dispute Resolution Program.

Why is there no mention of this dramatic change in Thrivent news or the internet?

Did  they change their minds?

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Thrivent new CEO Attorney Teresa J. Rasmussen, Formerly president and general counsel, More “Core Christian Values” or adversarial positions?

Thrivent new CEO Attorney Teresa J. Rasmussen, Formerly president and general counsel, More “Core Christian Values” or adversarial positions?

“Thrivent contends that its commitment to individual arbitration is ‘”important to the membership because it reflects Thrivent’s Christian Common Bond, helps preserve members’ fraternal relationships, and avoids protracted and adversarial litigation that could undermine Thrivent’s core mission.’”…Thrivent v. Acosta Nov. 3, 2017

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal”…1 Corinthians 13

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”…Jesus, John 8:32

 

I have believed and experienced for years that Thrivent was controlled by attorneys.

Now Thrivent is being run by new CEO Teresa J. Rasmussen, another attorney.

Will she bring more Thrivent touted “Core Christian Values” or attorney driven adversarial positions?

I sent Ms. Rasmussen a heads up email about my case about a week ago.

To her credit, she passed the email on to another in house attorney, the same one who took part in my “mediation” session.

I received an email from him 4 days ago and responded.

From Finance & Commerce October 16, 2018.

“Teresa Rasmussen is Thrivent’s new CEO

Teresa J. Rasmussen, currently president of Minneapolis-based Thrivent Financial, will take over as CEO by the end of the month. She replaces Bradford Hewitt, who is retiring after eight years of leading the financial services organization.

Rasmussen joined Thrivent in 2005 and has served as general counsel, secretary and senior vice president. She previously worked for American Express and Ameriprise Financial and began her career as a trial attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice.

She is the first woman in the CEO position, Thrivent said.

In a press release, Thrivent board chair Bonnie Raquet praised both Hewitt and Rasmussen for the work at the organization.

“Terry has distinguished herself as a strong leader with extraordinary business and legal acumen, as well as a deep understanding of Thrivent’s charter as a fraternal benefit society,” Raquet said. “What’s more, she has deep-seated values and a practical approach to aligning our workforce to serve our members and drive growth.””

Read more:

https://finance-commerce.com/2018/10/teresa-rasmussen-is-thrivents-new-ceo/

Without revealing too much of this exchange at this time (I waited 4 days without a response to write this) I would like to clear up the following statement made by the in house attorney:

” I would very much encourage you to seek the advice of counsel before setting forth on your threat to defame Thrivent.  Thrivent is proud of its trusted reputation and will take necessary steps to protect itself from your misrepresentations and false accusations.  For the past 7 years the Ethisphere Institute has recognized Thrivent as one of the top 100 most ethical organizations in the world.  Again, we will take necessary steps to protect our valued reputation.”

First:

Thrivent’s  “Code of Conduct”

“How might my behavior be perceived if it appeared in social media feeds, on the news or in tomorrow’s headlines?”

Second:

I diligently endeavor to write the truth, the facts. I conveyed this to the first Thrivent outside attorney to contact me and cautioned him on trampling on my First Amendment Rights. I also advised him to have Thrivent contact me with any corrections to inaccurate reporting.

I placed the following in an article dated July 30, 2018 addressed to former CEO Brad Hewitt:

“I recently told the outside attorney who relayed this message that I endeavor to be accurate and do not lie.

I stated that if Thrivent finds any errors or wishes to respond with a rebuttal, I will accomodate them.”

So far I have received no corrections from Thrivent, just threats.

Third:

Apparently there is enough evidence to draw the conclusion that the Ethisphere Institute award is one of the best ethics awards that money can buy.

Last:

If Thrivent wishes to protect its “valued reputation” it should immediately issue an apology to me and set in motion efforts for reparations.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Thrivent claim news, Dr. Grover office contact, Sincere investigation attempt?, Records not requested in 2017 contrary to Thrivent letter statement, Mediation session sham

Thrivent claim news, Dr. Grover office contact, Sincere investigation attempt?, Records not requested in 2017 contrary to Thrivent letter statement, Mediation session sham

“Companies don’t want to go to court because it puts them on a level playing field. Courts are ruled by law, legal precedent, and legal discovery, which allows litigants to obtain information and evidence from their opponents or from third parties.”…North Carolina Consumers Council

“The insurance companies understand that if they deny and deny claims, then many of the claimants will never pursue their claim,”…ABC News Good Morning America April 25, 2008

“Companies And CEOs Rarely Admit To Wrongdoing”…NPR Sept. 20, 2013

 

From Citizen Wells October 15, 2018.

“I have in my possession startling new evidence which explains the “Alice in Wonderland” responses and requests I received from Thrivent personnel and agents during the processing of my disability claims.

I am requesting that you examine the letter your senior claims examiner sent to the NC Insurance Commission on  August 10, 2018 and take the appropriate actions.

If I were in your shoes, after examining and reviewing the evidence, I would immediately issue an apology and make reparations.

In the absence of those Christian responses, I am requesting again that we proceed to mediation instead of Thrivent’s insistence on perceived authority to mandate binding arbitration.”

https://citizenwells.com/2018/10/15/to-brad-hewitt-thrivent-financial-for-lutherans-request-for-mediation-based-on-startling-new-evidence-request-you-examine-august-10-2018-letter-senior-claims-examiner-sent-to-nc-insurance-commissio/

Has a sincere effort to investigate what has actually transpired in my claims case begun?

I received a call from Dr. Grover’s office on Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2018, at 3:00 PM, asking if I had given my permission for an insurance company to receive my records.

I answered yes.

Since this phone number did not match the one I had on record, I decided I must verify it. I also wanted to know if anyone had requested my records in 2017.

On Friday, Oct. 26, 2018, I called the number which was answered as Dr. Grover’s office. I verified my identity and asked if anyone had requested my records in 2017. I was told someone would call me back.

I received a call several hours later. No one requested my records in 2017.

Thrivent Attorney Wayne Luck during mediation and the same claims person who wrote the 6 page letter to the NC Insurance Commission with the nonsensical contract explanation, the  “Alice in Wonderland” protocol, tried to accuse me of falsifying records. The claims person in her letter to my former attorney stated that Dr. Grover’s office had no records for me. As you note above, Dr. Grover’s office had no record of Thrivent requesting my records.

I however, have multiple copies of documents proving Dr. Grover saw me multiple times.

At no time has Thrivent requested these records.

The hole is getting deeper.

I will not put off forever revealing the  “Alice in Wonderland” nonsense the Thrivent claims person wrote.

I hope that someone(s) at Thrivent is intelligent and moral enough to seek the truth.

Background on Dr. Grover controversy.

http://eachstorytold.com/2018/10/27/thrivent-claim-more-startling-new-evidence-of-fraud-or-incompetence-dr-grovers-office-called-consequence-of-alice-in-wonderland-protocol/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Companies and CEOs rarely admit to wrongdoing,  Lawyers won’t let them, An apology helps to subtract the insult from the injury, thereby minimizing the injured party’s anger toward the offender

Companies and CEOs rarely admit to wrongdoing,  Lawyers won’t let them, An apology helps to subtract the insult from the injury, thereby minimizing the injured party’s anger toward the offender

“How might my behavior be perceived if it appeared in social media feeds, on the news or in tomorrow’s headlines?”...Thrivent “Code of Conduct”

“do unto others as you would have them do unto you”… Matthew 7:12

“An apology helps to subtract the insult from the injury, thereby minimizing the injured party’s anger toward the offender.”…Jonathan R. Cohen, Assistant Professor of Law

 

From NPR.

“Companies And CEOs Rarely Admit To Wrongdoing”

“SONARI GLINTON, BYLINE: Here’s a lesson we’ve all probably learned from our parents: When you’re wrong, say you’re sorry; fess up, admit it. These are toddler lessons – “Sesame Street,” “Mister Rogers.” So why do companies and CEOs so rarely admit that they screwed up?

KATHERINE PHILIPS: My cynical answer is, the lawyers won’t let them.

GLINTON: Katherine Philips is a professor of leadership and ethics at Columbia’s business school. She says one of the main reasons companies like JPMorgan don’t usually admit to wrongdoing, is because that will open them to crushing liabilities from plaintiff’s lawyers.

But Philips says there’s another element at play.

PHILIPS: One of the basic kind of psychological needs of human beings is to save face – right? – and to not look stupid, and not look like they don’t know what they’re doing. And people who are in powerful positions, and in charge, oftentimes feel that pressure even more so.”

Read more:

https://www.npr.org/2013/09/20/224296660/why-companies-and-ceos-rarely-admit-to-wrongdoing

ADVISING CLIENTS TO APOLOGIZE

Jonathan R. Cohen, Assistant Professor, University of Florida, Frederic G. Levin College of Law.

“Such factors prompt a question: Should lawyers discuss the possibility
of apology with clients more often? In this Article I argue that, in civil
cases, lawyers should discuss with clients the possibility of apology more
often than they now do.11 Not only is apology morally right and socially
beneficial, but in many cases making an apology is in the client’s (defendant’s)
best interest. This is not to say that there are no risks associated
with apology, not the least of which is the fear that an apology can be used
against one’s client in court as an admission of fault. However, when attention
is paid to the context in which an apology is offered and how it is
made, often “safe” apologies posing relatively little risk of increased liability
can be offered. Further, the possible benefits of apology to the client
(defendant) are under-recognized.”

“An apology can be an important step in preventing future antagonistic
behavior, including litigation. When an injury has occurred, there is a root
question to be resolved: Are you (the offender) my friend or my foe? An
apology signals that the offender wishes to establish or re-establish a
friendly relationship. It is a way of saying to the injured party: “I am your
friend, not your foe.” Implicit in this statement is often a second one, “I
want to have constructive future interactions, not destructive ones.” As
one might expect, this approach frequently works: The offender’s apology
often catalyzes the injured party’s forgiveness.”

“Indignity can be a large barrier to compromise, and in many cases, an
apology is needed before other aspects of the dispute, such as monetary
compensation, can be settled. As Goldberg, Green, and Sander write,
“[At] times, an apology alone is insufficient to resolve a dispute, but will
so reduce tension and ease the relationship between the parties that the issues
separating them are resolved with dispatch.”30 This observation has a
public policy corollary to which I shall return later: If we want to encourage the private settlement of, rather than the litigation of, disputes, allowing
parties to make apologies soon after an injury is critical.”

“Apology and forgiveness may also offer paths for spiritual and psychological
growth. By apologizing for, rather than denying or avoiding,
the damage he caused to his neighbor’s window, Hank becomes a better
person. By failing to apologize, Mr. Tiller may no longer be able to look at
himself in the mirror, or, should he meet her again, look Ms. Jones in the
eye. Responsibility and respect, rather than denial and avoidance, lie at
apology’s core. Within many religious and ethical systems, offering an
apology for one’s wrongdoing is an important part of moral behavior, as is
forgiving those who have caused offense.”

“One strategic benefit of an apology is that, if the injured party receives
the apology early enough, she may decide not to sue. For a legal
dispute to occur, injury alone is not sufficient. The injured party must also
decide to bring a legal claim.36 Taking the step to make a legal claim is
often triggered by the injured party’s anger. An early apology can help defuse
that anger and thereby prevent a legal dispute.37 The lesson here is an
important one. While there are risks to making an apology, there are also
risks to not making an apology. Accordingly, even if an apology could be
used against the offender at trial as proof of the offender’s liability (a topic
I will address shortly), in some cases it may still make sense for the offender
to apologize. The economically oriented might describe such an
apology as a gamble that an offender should take if and only if the expected
benefits from doing so, which depend upon the extent to which an
apology would decrease the likelihood of suit, exceed the expected costs,
which depend upon the extent to which an apology would harm the offender’s
case at trial.”

“VI. CONCLUSION
It is easy to see our world the way it is, and lose sight of the way it
should be. When an offender injures another, one would hope that, to the
extent that the offender feels at fault, he would apologize. This is not only
sound morality, it is a good way to prevent protracted disputes. An apology
helps to subtract the insult from the injury, thereby minimizing the injured
party’s anger toward the offender. Without an apology, what might
have been a minor offense may escalate into a major dispute.

While one could argue that lawyers should discuss the possibility of
apology with clients more often because apologizing when one has injured
another is the right thing to do, which is true, or because society would be
better off if more offenders apologized, which is also true, I have not done
so here. Rather, I have argued that lawyers should discuss apology more
often with their clients because often doing so would make their clients
better off. (Discussing apology with clients may make many lawyers
worse off, but that is another matter.) In many cases, the potential benefits
of apology are great, and when care is taken in how the apology is made—
within a “safe” legal mechanism like mediation, and with attention to nuances
such as admitting fault without assuming liability if insurance coverage
is at issue—the risks of apology are small. While our laws could be
and should be reworked to make “safe” apology easier, our existing legal
rules allow apologies to play a much larger role in legal disputes than they
now do.”

Read more:

https://www-bcf.usc.edu/~usclrev/pdf/072402.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/