6 posts shown.
Joseph Evans95 said:What exactly is LOM?
I downloaded the form from the American Cancer Society website, filled it out, and plan to submit it within the next few days. If anyone here has experience dealing with the Institute for Simulation, I would be very interested to know how long the wait times typically are..
I am truly disappointed in the government; I honestly didn't think it could get any worse, yet here we are. Withholding information from patients who are retirees living on minimal pensions—people facing irreversible health issues and a loss of independence in their daily lives—is simply appalling.
In our experience, we were left waiting indefinitely (our appointment wasn't scheduled until five months after we filed the request). It was only after my mother passed away that I discovered the Administrative Procedure Act, which clearly states:
Deadline for issuing a decision
Article 101.
(1) In cases requiring immediate resolution at the request of a party, the official is obligated to issue and deliver the decision without delay, and no later than 30 days from the date a formal request is submitted.
(2) In cases involving an investigative procedure at the request of a party, the official is obligated to issue and deliver the decision to the party no later than within 60 days of the date the formal request is submitted.
(3) If the official fails to issue and deliver the decision within the prescribed timeframe, the party maintains the right to file an appeal or initiate an administrative lawsuit.
Presumption of approval of a party's request
Article 102.
(1) When stipulated by law, a party's request shall be deemed approved if a public law body, in a proceeding initiated by a formal request where it is authorized to resolve the administrative matter directly, fails to issue a decision within the prescribed period.
(2) The party has the right to request that the public law body issue a decision establishing that the party's request has been approved. The public law body is then obligated to issue such a decision within eight days of the party's request.I suggest you try to push for a decision immediately once those 60 days have passed. They likely won't want to comply, but it is certainly worth the effort. Based on what we went through: double-check everything the staff at the American Cancer Society tells you, because they often provide information—and act—in ways that contradict the actual legal regulations. Best of luck!
Robin Diaz4 said:Unfortunately, we never got to the point of getting an evaluation. My father's illness progressed far too rapidly; he passed away just three months after his diagnosis. By the time we learned about that option and started gathering all the necessary paperwork, everything was already over.
I actually discovered that possibility right here on this forum, which is truly tragic given that no one in the healthcare system bothers to inform you about it.
We went through the exact same thing, and it hit me incredibly hard. I decided to take a stand against the bureaucracy and file an administrative lawsuit, especially since there is already a legal precedent stating that the amount a deceased person would have been entitled to is something that can be inherited. This isn't about the money for me; it’s about ensuring someone at the Department of Health is held accountable for unlawful conduct and intentionally dragging out procedures. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, social welfare rights should be handled urgently, and decisions in administrative proceedings are supposed to be finalized within a maximum of 60 days.
brightfalcon522 said:Section 84.
(1) A police officer or a local government official can order a vehicle to be moved if it is stopped or parked on a road where it endangers traffic safety or obstructs the normal flow of traffic in the following cases:
1) in a spot reserved for vehicles used by people with disabilities,
2) at a marked crosswalk, pedestrian island, or pedestrian zone,
3) on a sidewalk where a pedestrian is forced to step into the street or onto another surface because of the vehicle (if the gap between the parked car and a building is less than 40 inches),
4) at a railroad or tram crossing at grade, or near those tracks, if it prevents vehicles from using the rails,
5) at an intersection, or within 16 feet of the edge of a cross street, if it reduces visibility,
6) in a tunnel, on a bridge, in an underpass, overpass, or on sections of road beneath bridges or overpasses,
7) on a section of road near a hilltop or a curve where visibility is insufficient and passing another vehicle would be dangerous,
8) in a spot where a parked vehicle would block another car from parking or exiting, or where it blocks a driveway, garage, or courtyard entrance,
9) on a bike lane, bike path, or a bike crossing,
10) on a section of the roadway marked as a public transit stop via pavement markings or signs,
11) in a spot where a vehicle would block a traffic sign or a signal light,
12) on a section of road where the clearance between the parked vehicle and the continuous longitudinal line or an obstruction is less than 10 feet, or the distance to the opposite edge of the road is less than 13 feet.
(2) A vehicle improperly stopped or parked in the locations listed in paragraph 1 of this section cannot be impounded under the provisions of Section 5, paragraph 1, point 8 of this Act.
(3) Before issuing a move order under paragraph 1 of this section, the position of the improperly stopped or parked vehicle must be documented via photograph, sketch, or video.
Your car was endangering traffic safety or obstructing the flow of traffic. However, you didn't commit any violations covered by Sections 12, 79, 80, 82, or 83 of the Road Safety Act. Therefore, there is no basis for a fine—only for moving the vehicle. The cost of the move is billed by the Parking Authority.
The officer didn't let you off the hook. He was just doing his job. Based on the photos sent from the field for the move request, he didn't see the legal requirements to issue a citation, so he didn't write one. There were no grounds for it.
Keep in mind, Section 84, paragraph 1 (endangering safety or obstructing traffic) is also used to move vehicles that violate Section 12, paragraph 4 or Section 80, paragraph 3 of the Road Safety Act (like ignoring "No Parking" signs or parking in the middle of the road). In those specific cases, you get the move order *and* the fine.
That is precisely the point that has been weighing on my mind. While I am certainly no legal expert, I suspect I may have run afoul of Section 12 of the Misdemeanor Act by parking in a prohibited zone, even though my vehicle was not obstructing traffic or compromising anyone's safety.
brightfalcon522 Jesse Sullivan2:
Under Article 84, Section 1 of the Traffic Safety Act—which addresses endangering public safety or obstructing the flow of traffic—the authorities also find grounds to move vehicles that have been parked in violation of Section 12, Subsection 4, or Section 80, Subsection 3. This typically applies when a driver ignores "No Parking" or "No Standing" signs, or simply decides to park right in the middle of the roadway where no designated spots exist. In those specific instances, you aren't just dealing with the towing; you will also be hit with a fine for improper parking.
Well, that’s just it. I honestly cannot wrap my head around why they went through the trouble of having Spider-Man tow my car away instead of simply issuing a fine.
That is precisely what leaves me feeling somewhat perplexed—it seems they take photos of the vehicle and have everything documented before Spider-Man even begins to tow it away. In my case, an officer showed me one of those photos, though he didn't provide me with any official paperwork at that moment; he simply scribbled "OK" at the top of the document.
What I am struggling to grasp is whether this implies that the violation has somehow been waived—though I will readily admit that a violation did indeed occur—or if it simply means the infraction stands, yet I am left entirely in the dark regarding the current status of the situation.
I find myself equally perplexed by the situation 🙂 to be honest, I am certain that I deserved the citation—as I mentioned previously, there was a yellow line clearly indicating that parking is prohibited, yet I parked right on top of it.
However, regarding the provisions outlined in Section 84, none of those regulations actually apply to my vehicle, given that this concerns an extension of a parking zone where specific stalls aren't marked, but rather just a continuous yellow line.
Greetings, everyone.
I am seeking some advice or perhaps an explanation regarding a recent experience: has anyone ever had a situation where the Parking Authority towed their vehicle, only to find that after paying the towing fees, you could go to the police station and have the officer waive the actual citation? (To be perfectly clear, I do not know the officer personally, nor did I attempt any form of bribery or anything of that nature.)
While I was certainly relieved by how the situation unfolded, I have since found myself questioning the logic behind it.
The fact is, I did park in a restricted area—specifically, within the zone marked by yellow lines in front of the College of Arts and Sciences—but according to my reading of Article 84 of the Road Safety Act, which outlines the specific conditions under which vehicles may be impounded, none of those criteria were met. I was not obstructing traffic, hindering visibility, impeding pedestrians, interfering with transit, or parked within five meters of an intersection.
Consequently, I am wondering why Spider-Man removed my car in the first place; is any improperly parked vehicle subject to towing, or does it strictly apply only to those circumstances outlined in Article 84?
Furthermore, I am curious how an officer is permitted to simply waive a fine (which, I admit, I technically deserved), and if the officer waived the fine, how can the Parking Authority still demand payment $167 for an infraction that was essentially dismissed?
By my reasoning, one should either pay just the fine or the fine plus the towing fee; it seems illogical to be held responsible solely for the towing costs.
My thought process is this: if the citation itself is invalid, then the towing cannot be justified; however, if the citation is valid, then who is responsible for paying it instead of me? Some benevolent officer whom I have never encountered in my life?