Laserfiche WebLink
compensated. So its clear that the claim hes making was never considered in the other rule <br />program so that, again, thats clear to me that he has not been compensated for what he is being <br />asked to be compensated for in this proceeding. And then the question is whether or not, you <br />know, the fact that, -. So its a claim that, hey, I lost out on this money because I had to sell, and <br />Im not able to get it at the, you know, at the place I have and its going to take me all the seven <br />years to get back to where I was making this money so I should be compensated over that period <br />of time. And hes not saying that -. You know, thats essentially as how I see it. Thats the <br />question that was put to the adjuster, the adjuster went and did his work and made the <br />recommendation. And so thats why I think that its best to defer to the adjusters <br />recommendation. We dont have any new evidence that the adjuster didnt have in making the <br />recommendation for compensation. We dont have anything new. We have some different <br />arguments that maybe the adjuster, I dont know what the adjuster considered, whatever the <br />dynamic was in doing the investigation or if there was any interaction with the Department on, or <br />the Director on coming up with how this should be done. But, you know, and I dont know if <br />thatsevenappropriatetoconsider. <br />But,again,becausethisisanyotherclaimanditsnotaclaimforanactualeconomicloss,thats <br />how I view that, that we need to view it as a claim under 14-6(c), the very last provision that says <br />that compensation can be made for any other claim of adverse impact which is able to be <br />substantiated by the evidence. And Wood & Taits Report basically summarizes that, that this <br />claim was substantiated by its investigation, the evidence it saw. And thats why I think its best <br />for us to defer to that, because we dont have all of that. <br />SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? <br />GALDONES:Commissioner Springer. <br />SPRINGER:While the adjuster submitted that range, I believe that we need to put a <br />dollar value to it. I see from the previous record, the record of the previous discussion on this <br />th <br />matter on August 5 <br />, that just for clarification the approval recommendation is to award the <br />claimant compensation totaling the amount of $25,361, which is an amount represented in the <br />adjusters report. Is that the nature of this motion? <br />IWASHITA:No. That motion failed last time and so I dont like to fail twice doing the <br />same thing. I know Im crazy but I dont want to be declared insane. So the reason Im making <br />this motion in this manner is, I understand the concern about this range and if it actually goes <br />through what Mr. Malasek would actually get paid. Okay, I understand that thats a concern <br />because the recommendation will become the decision. You know, and its going to be this <br />range, right? I understand that concern. But, you know, I think that administratively or however <br />that works out, thatll get dealt with by the Fund, whoever has to cut the check. And I guess the <br />worstthingthatcanhappenifyouwanttoputavaluejudgmentonitisthatthehighestamount <br />is the amount that will be paid. And I dont have a problem with that, if thats actually the result <br />ofthemotion. <br />SPRINGER:Mr.Chair? <br />21 <br /> <br />