An interesting motion for continuance crossed my desk recently. It was a case in which the employer carrier had moved for a continuance earlier in the year. Now the claimant was seeking a second continuance. The motion was brief and provided little detail or explanation.
It essentially said that the claimant needed additional time for discovery, and that the employer/carrier did not object.
Of course, the motion was denied as being statutorily insufficient. I am surprised by how often attorneys express dismay upon being reminded that any motion by the injured worker for a secon...
Comments