Question not identified

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW _ Dear Justices of this U. S. Supreme Court I contacted the Courts by letter inquiring about what I believe to be a violation of my rights concerning fair, timely, proper treatment and my right to due process hope of recovery. I submit the following questions for review. 1. Employer fail to give Employer’s intent in a timely manner. 65.2-601.2 a. Question: Should the Court have required claims adjuster, Loretta Lawrence to specified reasons why the claim was still being investigated after the beyond the 30 days required and continuing to 10/31/2018? Rule 1.5 , b. Question: Was Employers failure to update Claim status, and injury status on 04/07/17, 04/17, 05/22/17 deliberate, intentional misleading of the Court? Va. Code 65.2 600, 29CFR Parts 1904 and 1952 : c. Questions: Should Dr. Roger Talbot’s initial recommend for surgery on 05/23/17 have been considered when determining claimant’s injury was compensable on 04/17, 05/22/2017 proven by medical evidence of MRI? 65.2 — 601.2 2. The Court erred in determining claimant refused selective work on October 17, 2017? a. Question: Did the Court take into account claimant’s testimony she had suffered doctor patient abandonment on October 16, 2017? (18 VAC 85 — 20 — 28, 32.127.1:03) b. Question: Did the claimant have the right to receive proper notification of doctor patient relationship ending, an impairment rating, or a Functional capacity evaluation, | In the Supreme Court of the United States | Shirlene Bailey September 15, 2021 | Petitioner, pro se | Virginia Workers’ Commission: INC 00GO Appeals Court of Virginia: 0664 20-1 Virginia Supreme Court: 201472 | v. | . Suffolk Public Schools | Defendant | and time to seek treatment following Dr. Bryan Fox’s doctor patient abandonment on October 16, 2017? ; c. Question: Should the Court have questioned Dr. Rodney Brown conflicting testimonies pertaining to alleged refusal of work on 10/17/17 and approval of claimant’s Extended Leave on the same date 10/17/17?” ; | d. Question: Should the Court have reqiired Dr. Brown to product copies of the : | claimants Extended Leave from October 17, 2017 — October 17, 2018 3. The Court erred when they said claimant was not injured as claimed. a. Question: Should the Judges have taken into account the initial attending physician 7 recommend of surgery May 23, 2017~ SEE ATTACHED, Pp. | b. Question: Should the Court have required the defendants to provide documented | proof how the alleged MMI was reached on 10/16/17? c. Question: Did the Court assume, because there was no change in the MRI on (10/07/17) that claimant’s injury had improved? d. Question: Did the Court take into account the medical professional opinion, diagnosis and treatments of all (8)) eight physicians before and after Dr. Fox’s abrupt release? e. Question: Did the Court consider Dr. Arthur Wardell’s medical opinion was based on all medical documents, testing, MRI’s, x-rays of all physicians; diagnosing claimants | “Permanently Aggravated conditions? | f. Question: Was Claimant rights violated as a pro se litigant with being forced to take | leave for a work injury and being given an ultimatum to backdate the leave or face job abatement? | | In the Supreme Court of the United States Shirlene Bailey September 15, 2021 Petitioner, pro se Virginia Workers’ Commission: JNC 0 Appeals Court of Virginia: 0664 — 20-1 Virginia Supreme Court: 201472 Vv. Suffolk Public Schools Defendant 4. The Court erred a. Question: Did the Court considered claimant’s testimony and proof that she had been denied a new treating physician for over 3 months. b. Question: Why wasn’t a panel offered from October 16, 2017 until February 2, 2018 prior to upcoming court hearing? c. Question: Did the Court consider claimant’s testimony of the defendant’s denial of new panel/treatment for over three months was truthful? 5. The Court err in heavily relying upon the contradictive plan of care of the non-treating; abandoning physician; Dr. Bryan Fo