Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
Cubic Application Inc is an international contracting company that has specialized in offering technological services and products to military in over 50 countries across the world. Specifically, Omega Division Training Division has specialized in offering quality military services and products to defense industry, Department of Defense and other subcontracting agencies in the United States. Ray Kaufferman and Roger Hewitt co-founded Omega Training Division in 1990 after they retired from the United States Army. Proven record of accomplishment has boosted Omega Training Division to be a contractor of choice in military, for it provides quality-training services to soldiers and sophisticated equipments to military. For over 20 years in operation, Omega Training Division is still leading in supplying military services and training because of its core values of quality, integrity and soldiers that are matchless. To satisfy different needs of military, which are mainly Marines, Army, Navy and Air Force, Cubic Application Inc offers a wide range of programs, which include training, logistic management, analysis and studies, program management, software development and various technological applications in military. Recently, United State Army awarded Cubic Application Inc a five-year contract worth $49 million that entailed supply and maintenance of Surveillance and Control Data Link equipment. This research paper examines the quality assurance of services and products, together with a legal case of Cubic Applications Inc.
The Quality Assurance
Cubic Applications Inc. Omega Training Division offers quality of services and products to defense industry, Department of Defense, and other military agencies. With experience of over 20 years, Omega Training Division has established lucrative relationship with its customers because it offers quality products and services. The lucrative relationship that the company has built for many years has enabled it to offer diverse products and services that satisfy different needs of its customers with respect to Marines, Navy, Army, and Air Force. The United States Department of Defense relies heavily on Omega Training Divisions to provide military services and products, which are not only quality and cost effective, but also technologically oriented. Military services and products that Omega Training Division is providing are quality and innovative in that, they give military assurance about their capacity to combat many intriguing challenges of defense industry.
Moreover, Omega Training Division provides a wide range of programs to military that are essential in enhancing military capacity. One of the integral programs that Omega Training Division is offering is training. Given that trainers are military veterans who have immense experiences, they provide appropriate knowledge and skills, which is crucial in enabling military persons to gain experiences with regard to combat. Hence, training of military in terms of logistics, operations and fighting tactics develop soldiers and improve overall capacity of military personnel. Military veterans also train soldiers on how to apply new technological tactics and utilization of new military equipments. Thus, military personnel development and adoption of technological equipments by Omega Training Division gives an assurance that military defense is secure.
Additional programs such as program management, logistics management, New Equipment Training (NET), System training, test and evaluation, analysis, and studies amongst other pertinent programs are central to quality assurance of services and products of Omega Training Division. Given that Omega Training Division has numerous customers that range from Department of Defense, defense industry, foreign countries, and other defense agencies, it is evident that their services and products are of a high quality. Moreover, the nature of contracts that Omega Training Division has obtained from various customers is worth millions of dollars; thus, it implies that, they have a noble reputation in the sphere of military. Therefore, Omega Training Division provides services and products to military that are of matchless quality.
Ebare v. Cubic Applications Inc
The case of Priscilla Ebare v. Cubic Application Inc emerged when Ebare, an employee of Cubic Applications Inc suffered back injury in 2004 during the course of duty when she accidentally stepped into a hole. Though Ebare reported the accident immediately to the authority, she did not seek medical attention instantly because she underrated the extent and consequent of the injury. It was after three months that Ebare started complaining of back injury when her doctor told her that the injury relates to her work. Then, Ebare reported the matter to her employer, Cubic Applications Inc that declined to accord her appropriately medical attention and compensation. Sullivan (2009) argues that, Ebare complained that Cubic Applications Inc did not compensate her temporary total disability benefits (TTDs) and further denied her to consult a physician of choice (p.2). In view of these complaints, Ebare filed a case at Office of Workers Compensation (OWC) to obtain her compensation benefits.
In the year 2006, two years after the injury, workers compensation judge (WCJ) made an oral ruling that was latter written and signed in 2008 at OWC, which favored Ebare. In the ruling, WCJ observed that the injury occurred in the course and context of employment in Cubic Applications Inc., and thus, deserve compensation. Moreover, the WCJ noted that Cubic Applications Inc denied her to consult a doctor of her choice. According to Sullivan (2009), WJC ruled that Ebare deserve TTDs from the time she did not work, in 2004 to present, and additional compensation of $2,000 as a penalty for denying her to see a doctor of her choice (p.3). Seeing that the ruling of OWC was unfair due to high compensation demands, Cubic Applications Inc. appealed the verdict terming it erroneous. Cubic Applications Inc singled out three errors: firstly, there was no corroborating evidence to support the occurrence of injury; secondly, WCJ awarded TTDs without recommendations of a doctor that confirmed her disability and thirdly, WCJ erred in determining the penalty of $2,000 yet Ebare had some other complications in her health. Thus, Cubic Applications Inc. found it reasonable to appeal and reverse the verdict.
The Case Brief
The case name is Ebare v. Cubic Applications Inc, 5 So.3d 1028 (3th Cir. 2009). Ebare was a plaintiff who sued Cubic Applications Inc, defendant at OWC for not compensating her TTDs and denying her to consult the doctor of choice. WCJ found out that, indeed, Cubic Applications Inc. had not followed compensation procedures of workers, and thus ruled in favor of Ebare. Following the ruling, the Cubic Applications Inc appealed the verdict as an appellant, while Ebare became an appellee, thus making the case as Cubic Applications Inc v. Ebare. The appellate court affirmed the ruling in part and reversed it in part in 2009, and the reporter of the case was Southern Reporter, third series volume 5 (So.3d).
The Keys facts in the case Ebare v. Cubic Applications Inc., is that, Ebare had sued Cubic Application Inc. for denying her to consult a doctor of her choice and demanded compensation of TDDs because she sustained injury in the course of job that made her physically disabled. WCJ ruled that, Cubic Applications Inc. needed to compensate her TTDs and pay extra $2,000 as a penalty for restricting her not to see her doctor. Consequently, Cubic Applications Inc appealed the ruling citing three errors, viz. there was no bearing evidence to support the occurrence of injury, WCJ awarded TTDs without recommendations of a doctor that confirmed her disability, and WCJ erred in determining the penalty of $2,000 because Ebare had some other complications in her health. Eventually, the appellate court disregarded the first two alleged errors and accepted the last error, thus affirming WJC ruling in part and reversing it in part.
Legal issues of the case Applications Inc v. Ebare revolved on three issues that Cubic Applications Inc has identified as erroneous in WCJ ruling. In the first issue, Cubic Applications Inc had asserted that WCJ depended only on Ebares testimony with no corroborating evidence to support the occurrence of the accident and subsequent injury. Basing on Bruno, 593 So.2d at 360-61, the Judge argued that a worker has the burden of proof and that workers testimony is enough given that circumstances of accident corroborate and there is no reasonable evidence to discredit it. Thus, the judge affirmed that the accident occurred in the course and context of employment. Regarding the issue of TTDs, the judge quoted Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1221, which states that for any claimant to prove entitlement to TTDs, one must demonstrate physical disability clearly and convincingly. According to Sullivan (2009), the judge argued that the issue of disability is a legal issue rather than a medical issue; hence, workers have the privilege to prove their disability (p.6). Since physicians cannot approve disability of a worker, the judge affirmed the award of TTDs. However, the judge reversed the ruling of penalty that demanded award of $2,000 because it was reasonable that Cubic Applications Inc attempted to find out the cause of Ebare condition, since she had other health complications.
Following the appeal by Cubic Applications Inc, the court affirmed the ruling in part that Ebare sustained injuries during the course of employment and that WJC was right when he determined TDDs. The court also reversed the ruling on the basis that, Cubic Applications Inc, did not bar Ebare from seeing the doctor of her choice because, it acted reasonably in ascertaining the cause of Ebares health condition. Thus, the appeal relieved Cubic Application Inc from paying $2,000 as a penalty.
Courts Rationale
- The Ebares accident occurred in the course and context of employment, although she did not experience any injury until after three months
- Physician determination of disability is secondary to patient testimony; hence, Ebare has the burden of proof in justifying her disability.
- Cubic Applications Inc. has the right to use reasonable means in determining the cause of Ebares health condition, since she had other health complications.
Conclusion
The case of Ebare v. Cubic Applications Inc. showed that, WCJ had issued a verdict that Cubic Applications Inc. should compensate Ebare TTDs, in addition to $2,000, as a penalty for denying her to see the doctor of her choice. Following the verdict, Cubic Applications Inc. filed an appeal, for they cited a number of errors in the ruling. The appellate court examined the submissions of Cubic Applications Inc and affirmed in part that the accident occurred in the course of employment, and, therefore, Ebare need compensation of TTDs. However, the court reversed compensation of $2,000 because Cubic Applications Inc acted reasonably in ascertaining the cause of Ebares health condition. Since the ruling majorly had its basis on Ebares testimony, it is appropriate that the court should have considered corroborating evidence from third parties like doctors and workmates. Moreover, the court should have considered investigating other factors that might have complicated health condition of Ebare.
Reference
Sullivan, M. (2009). Priscilla Ebare versus Cubic Application, Inc. State of Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, 1-11.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.