Document G33mn0o6Vaz5Gg5M8E338Lnr

CIGNA Property and Casualty Companies 115 Perimeter Center Place P.O. Box 88240 Atlanta. GA 30356-8240 December 9, 1988 Workers' Compensation Claims Center CIGNA REDACTED Mr. Anthony Colangelo c/o Sherwin Williams Company 101 Prospect Avenue, N. W. Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1075 Re: Our File No. 130C 45 904 52-4 Insured: Sherwin Williams Claimant: Date of Event: 12-6-85 REDACTED Dear Tony, This follows our letter of October 26, 1988. You will recall that I in quired at that time as to whether we would want to make a counter-offer to the $80,000 demand of the claimant's attorney. Since we have not heard from you as of this date, we assume that it is your decision to not make a counter-offer. As you had previously suggested that we look into a rehabilitation re-evalu ation, we were wondering if you still thought we should proceed in this direction. You will recall that we previously pointed out that stroke was found to be work related and that the treating physician con sidered him totally disabled as a truck driver and not a candidate for any re-training or vocational rehabilitation. Further, the claimant was reason ably well-salaried and alternate employment would not bring him near his pre vious salary range. This would, of course, be a disincentive to a positive attitude going into any training program. As in most jurisdictions, the Georgia Board interprets the law liberally to the benefit of the claimant. We would not expect, particularly in this case, to create a situation in which we could expect to discontinue or limit the claimant's present benefits. By copy of this letter, we are giving Mr. David Smith the benefit of our thoughts. You may wish to discuss the matter further with him but, as you can see, it is our judgment that the only viable alternative to paying life time benefits on this case is to attempt to negotiate a settlement. N40410 60O7-SWP-OO58O5674 CONFIDENTIAL