2024-04-14 Complaint to OLSC about solicitor Timothy Ceballos

This is a complaint to the Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner about solicitor Timothy Ceballos from McInnes Wilson Lawyers. I believe he intentionally provided incorrect statements to the Personal Injury Commission stating them to be true. I believe he is not a fit person to be a solicitor in NSW.

For reply from OLSC please go to page Timothy Ceballos.

Complaint Details

Have you tried to resolve matter with the lawyer?

No.

If yes, how? If not, why not?

I had no direct contact with Ceballos. Ceballos represented QBE, the opposing team and I had no direct contact with him. However, I have provided detailed information about Ceballos incorrect statements to my lawyers (I had 3 sets of lawyers representing me). I had different promises but basically no actions:

Potts and Pryde told me that he can write whatever he pleases no matter how absurdly incorrect it is.
Leonard wrote to me that it is important to correct it "The correction of the insurer's errors or wrongs, in the review application, is most important", but basically took no action.
Livers promised to include it in his particulars and during the PIC assessment conference, but did nothing.

I have provided detailed information about the actions of other lawyers in separate complaints.

I do not think I can achieve anything by contacting directly Ceballos now, because:

Ceballos' actions were deliberate and calculated. He is fully aware that is doing and has a clear goal: to damage my claim and make the process of claim as difficult and painful as he only could.
Ceballos is fully aware of the effect it had on me, from medical records that he quotes himself. I even wrote in the last formal communication how it affected me and Ceballos chose not to respond (see "2023-08-27 Accepting APP-10268809 award.pdf"). Even that could not make any impact on compensation.
I have no power to influence Ceballos directly to take any actions regarding incorrect statements he provided.
Even if I do not have any direct evidence, the absurdity of some incorrect statements he has provided and his behaviour during the PIC assessment conference makes me believe that he relies on the same behaviour regularly and he has no intention to change.

Please provide a summary of your complaint and include the following details:

What happened? Who was involved?
Details of significant events, such as dates of meetings and court hearings.
What are your concerns?

Until recently, after writing complaints about my previous solicitors, I did not know or realise the importance of some Ceballos actions, especially the link between the actions of my solicitors and Ceballos. This is because I did not have enough information, the importance of some actions was not clear and because of PTSD from the injury and subsequent dealing with QBE insurance and lawyers involved in the claim.

Ceballos represented QBE insurance from the start when Law Partners (Potts) started representing me in 2018. I have only a few records of communications between Ceballos and Law Partners also because of potential time limitations I will focus mainly only on the communications over the last 3 years. However, in my view, Ceballos, Potts and Pryde actions make more sense if I assume that there was collusion between them to have my compensation at some low level that was high enough for Law Partners to claim high fees, but without going to any independent assessment. This would allow Law Partners to claim high fees while doing very little work without the need to inform me about my rights. At the same time QBE (Ceballos) would settle a claim at compensation that would be less than they can expect from independent assessment. That would also avoid the risk of paying compensation that would be based on realistic loss of income and several times more than latter was offered by Ceballos and Law Partners. However, it also gives Law Partners good fees without a risk of not getting large compensation due to some complications related to income.

This explains why Law Partners avoided mentioning PTSD diagnosis and instead promoted depression. PTSD establishes a direct link with road traffic injury and sets much better grounds for claim. However, with depression diagnosis I am more dependable on Ceballos and Law Partners agreement. More about Law Partners not collecting information and representing me properly in complaints about Potts and Pryde.

At the end of 2019 and the start of 2020 Law Partners arranged few pointless meetings, where the exaggeration of the legal fees seems to be the only reason for them. After this Law Partners started pushing me to accept the QBE offer even if before they said it is not acceptable.

Ceballos arranged their medical assessment with Moodley in March 2020. The report had many absurdly incorrect statements (see "2020-03-18 Moodley report errors.pdf"). I was shocked to read some of them as it was easy to prove that they were factually incorrect. The report has no credibility when almost every paragraph has some factual errors. Why would you order such a report? Unless you already have a promise that it will not be challenged.

It came to a bigger shock when Law Partners refused to challenge the Moodley report. They insisted that this report changes everything and if I go to an independent assessment I will get way less than QBE is offering. I still asked to go for an independent assessment. Instead Law Partners hit me with a very exaggerated bill, demanding to accept these fees and removal of the 30% cap. With such exaggerated fees, a promise to increase them significantly more and very poorly done work I had no chance to go further with Law Partners.

Then Ceballos submitted an application for assessment of damages. It had lots of incorrect statements.

Law Partners used this application to push me to settle or I lose my claim completely, instead of submitting my application, which they claim they have prepared.

I went to Moya de Luca-Leonard to represent me instead of Law Partners. At first Leonard did well by putting Ceballos application on-hold and asking for an independent medical assessment. Assessment confirmed PTSD and impact over required 10% whole person impairment limit to get compensation for pain and suffering.

On 2021-04-14 Ceballos submitted a request for review for medical assessment. His request had a lot of incorrect statements.

I expected Leonard to dispute them. However, her behaviour changed and she provided a vague objection to the review request. At first the request for review was rejected, but then it was granted. Leonard has not disputed any incorrect information provided directly by Ceballos or through Moodley report. Instead she started pushing for settlement. Incorrect information had an effect on review. After this she resigned instead trying to fix the situation and go for an independent assessment as I requested. She blamed previous lawyers and my lack of understanding how heavily my chances were affected by corruption (“political influence").

I signed the authority to act for Peter Livers at the start of 2023. I provided detailed information about my claim to Livers. All he had to do was to forward it to PIC. He selectively did not forward information about incorrect statements by Ceballos and damaged my claim. Livers also did not include and persuaded me not to include information about QBE not fulfilling their responsibilities (more in section Background). This resulted in much lower compensation that would have been reasonably expected otherwise.

2023-06-13 Livers sent me Ceballos particulars. I resent my comments with a list of incorrect Ceballos statements and later sent some more. Livers convinced me that the best is to present them during the tribunal as they may not be accepted now otherwise. I was shocked that Ceballos resent the same particulars.

2023-06-28 The PIC assessment conference went terribly bad. Livers completely misrepresented me by basically doing nothing. More about this later. I am waiting for an audio recording of the conference.

2023-07-20 Livers sent me a PIC determination. PIC determination was very unfair and had lots of factual errors. I asked Livers to go to court as he promised, but he refused. He said "I will not allow it". All this completely overwhelmed me.

Now looking back the only reason why Ceballos sent an outdated particular on 2023-06-13 is that he already knew that Livers will not challenge and a PIC member will ignore obvious errors and will make determination in his favour.

How do you want us to help you to resolve your complaint?

Please note: One of our officers may contact you to discuss what we can and we cannot do

Investigate false statements provided by Ceballos.
I believe that the level of incorrectness is so high that he is not fit to be a solicitor. Such a person should not be allowed to practise as solicitor in NSW.
I do suspect collusion and corruption in Ceballos actions. I hope you will come to the same conclusion and take appropriate action.
If your powers are limited towards investigating collusion I hope you will forward it to appropriate authorities.

What area of legal service does this complaint arise from?

Personal injuries

Are you disputing the legal costs you have been charged by your lawyer?

No

Notes

Only when I was looking at Livers work did I realise that most of the actions of my solicitors that seemed to me as severe misconduct can be best explained as collusion and the common denominator is Ceballos. I do not have direct evidence and I may not get them. However, that is the explanation that fits well. Such actions break the whole trust in legal systems. This is why I believe that OLSC is the best place to deal with it.

Writing this complaint is exceptionally difficult for me. I did not expect that my claim would be determined based on incorrect information. However, this is exactly what has happened. It was dragged and delayed with incorrect statements and then determination relies on it too. That was re-traumatizing time and remember it triggers PTSD symptoms. It is shocking to realise brutal was incorrect information provided by Ceballos and well he used my disability not to be able to defend myself. It took me years of therapy to start unravelling what has happened.

Background

I was cycling in Sydney when a car from oncoming traffic made a right turn straight into me on 2015-03-30. I was sure I was going to die when I saw a car accelerating towards me. I survived, but among other things the fear stayed. Since then, I am struggling with PTSD.

I was frustrated with the way QBE (drivers insurance company) was managing the claim:

QBE did not pay for any treatment. They promised to pay, but then did not.
QBE took 3 years to reply about liability while even according to them they were required to do that within 3 months.
QBE kept sending me to different assessments but refused to share their reports.

I initially contacted Law Partners to represent me. However, I was unhappy with their representation. I feel that they did not collect or submit important information about my health problems.

I was told by Law Partners that QBE has a right to share any assessment reports only if it suits them. If QBE is not happy with the report they can simply send me to another assessor till they will get an assessment that suits them.

I may have been misinformed as I read that insurance has to share report or should not send for further examinations: https://www.sira.nsw.gov.au/resources-library/workers-compensation-resources/publications/workers-and-claims/independent-medical-examinations

On the request of Ceballos Law Partners sent me for assessment by Ceballos selected psychologist Vanitha Moodley. At the end of April 2020, I got a report by Vanitha Moodley (a psychologist hired by QBE solicitors) that had a large number of absurd errors. Law Partners pushed me to settle. It felt that the main purpose of the Moodley report was to help Law Partners to push me to settle. Ceballos submitted an application to PIC claiming that QBE should not pay any compensation. Law Partners used it to apply further pressure to settle.

Due to concerns about Law Partners’ advice about this report, I contacted one solicitor whom I knew. He recommended to me Moya de Luca-Leonard, who helped him in the past with one client who had a personal injury claim, as he worked in a different area of law. Leonard organised an assessment by a psychiatrist who specialises in PTSD and submitted the documents I sent to her to PIC. She asked for the QBE damages application to be put on hold due to a medical dispute. Independent assessment confirmed PTSD and significant impact on my life 19% whole person impairment.

I do not have much information about previous communications between Ceballos and Law Partners as Law Partners share only little information. They were also careful not to provide much information in writing about their advice. However, Leonard shared more and the one significant example of incorrect statements by Ceballos was his application to review independent medical assessment on 2021-04-14.

Unfortunately since then in her submissions to PIC Leonard withheld information about errors in Moodley report and factually incorrect statements by Ceballos, QBE solicitor. Leonard then pushed me to accept an unfavourable settlement without any compensation for loss of past income. When I asked to submit documents to PIC for independent assessment Leonard resigned. I then hired Peter Livers to represent me, but his representation at the PIC tribunal was even worse.

Timeline

2021-03-17: PIC medical assessor Dr Wayne Mason issued a medical assessment certificate.; File: "2021-03-17 Dr Wayne Mason assessment.pdf"
2021-04-14: Mr Ceballos wrote to Ms Leonard and PIC appealing for an independent medical assessment.; Files "2021-04-20-30 emails from-to Moya Ceballos appeal and my comments with evidence of errors.pdf" and "2021-04-14 - Letter to c sols serving PIC Application - appeal to assessment.pdf".
2021-04-15 - 2021-04-26: I sent detailed information to Ms Leonard with supporting evidence that Mr Ceballos' appeal is based on factually incorrect statements. See previous complaint about Ms Leonard not disputing incorrect statements in Ceballos appeal.; File : "2024-04-11 Errors in Ceballos appeal of 2021-04-14.pdf" - detailed list of incorrect statements in Ceballos appeal. I combined it into one file.
2021-05-04: Ms Leonard sent me Campbell reply submissions. Campbell's submission does not dispute any incorrect statements by Ceballos. She only writes how the assessor addressed them. However, it is inaccurate, Mr Ceballos statements are factually incorrect and could not be part of the assessment. Next day Ms Leonard wrote that she will file the reply today and believe that the appeal has no material basis.; File "2021-05-04 lr client email 24 plus submissions - Campbell reply to QBE appeal.pdf"
From this time till next PIC assessment: I reminded Ms Leonard about factual errors in Ceballos and Moodley statements (on a few occasions Ms Leonard told me that she knows how and will deal with it), but she took no actions. More about it in previous complaints.
2023-09-30: PIC medical review panel issued determination. Leaving diagnosis of PTSD and impact over 10%, but adding new diagnosis about functioning before the injury that seems to be based only on incorrect information from Ceballos and Moodley. After this she resigned, instead of trying to fix the situation and go for an independent assessment as I requested. She blamed previous lawyers and my lack of understanding how heavily my chances were affected by corruption ("political influence").
2023-11-21: I got access to the PIC portal and downloaded the QBE application for damages on the PIC portal APP-10268809. One of the files was insurers submissions by Ceballos. It contains a lot of errors and fraudulent statements.; Files: "A1 Insurers submission.pdf"
2023-01-24: I signed authority to act for Peter Livers and he signed an agreement that his fees will be limited to regulated costs recoverable from the insurance company.
2023-01-24 to 2023-08-30: I provided detailed information about my claim to Livers. All he had to do was to forward it to PIC. He selectively did not forward information about incorrect statements by Ceballos and damaged my claim. Livers also did not include and persuaded me not to include information about QBE not fulfilling their responsibilities (more in section Background). This resulted in much lower compensation that would have been reasonably expected otherwise.
2023-05-05: Livers sent me solicitor particulars. I was shocked that it did not contain the information I provided about Ceballos incorrect statements. Livers explained to me on the phone that first Ceballos has to update his particulars and only then we can object to it. Later on I spoke with Livers several times about it and he reassured me that he is aware of errors in Ceballos particulars and he will present objections to them all before and during the tribunal.; Files: "2023-05-05 Solicitor particulars.pdf", "2023-05-05 email from to Livers - Re FW Attached Image - solicitor submissions.pdf"
2023-06-13: Livers sent me Ceballos particulars and I resent my comments with a list of incorrect Ceballos statements. Livers convinced me that the best is to present them during the tribunal as they may not be accepted now otherwise.; Files: "2023-06-14 email from to Livers - Re FW Attached Image - Ceballos particulars.pdf", "2023-06-13 Ceballos particulars - 0845_001.pdf"
2023-06-28: The PIC assessment conference went terribly bad. Livers completely misrepresented me by basically doing nothing. More about this later. I am waiting for an audio recording of the conference.
2023-07-20: Livers sent me a PIC determination.; File: "2023-07-20 PIC determination.pdf"
2023-07-20 - a bit more than one month: PIC determination was very unfair and had lots of factual errors. I asked Livers to go to court as he promised, but he refused. He said "I will not allow it". All this completely overwhelmed me. I tried to look for a solution but failed. One thing I have not relished is that Ceballos and Livers particulars together with PIC determination were providing a very incorrect picture and any attempt to find advice about it was doomed to fail. My health deteriorated so much that it became a question of survival. More about this latter.
2023-08-08: I wrote a request to fix obvious errors. Livers insisted that I also have to write that I accept determination. After this it becomes pointless exercise.; File: "2023-08-08 An Application to Correct The Obvious Errors in Certificate of Determination.pdf"
2023-08-27: Not being able to cope and having strong concerns about staying alive I sent confirmation that I accepted a corrupted tribunal decision due to health reasons.; File: "2023-08-27 Accepting APP-10268809 award.pdf"

My complaint against Timothy Ceballos

Ceballos knowingly provided incorrect information to PIC while claiming that this information is correct. On 2021-04-14 Ceballos submitted File "2021-04-14 - Letter to c sols serving PIC Application - appeal to assessment.pdf" has Ceballos incorrect statements about Dr Mason assessment and file "2024-04-11 Errors in Ceballos appeal.pdf" has a list of incorrect statements by Ceballos. 2023-06-13 Livers sent me Ceballos particulars and I resent my comments. Livers convinced me that the best is to present them during the tribunal as they may not be accepted now otherwise. File: "2023-06-14 email from to Livers - Re FW Attached Image - Ceballos particulars.pdf". Below I provide only some examples of incorrect statements by Ceballos that can not be some form of mistake, but seems to be provided with intent to provide incorrect information that is damaging for my personal injury claim. Full lists of incorrect statements are given in files mentioned above.

Misquoting document completely changing meaning of statement

Fake statement that I worked in Sweden

In many cases Ceballos takes a statement and presents it as a quote, but in reality he changed the meaning of it completely.

From Ceballos appeal:

• The claimant obtained a role in Sweden in 2016, allegedly working for a period of 6 weeks – paragraph 65 of his statement dated 29 April 2019;

From Ceballos particulars:

• He obtained a role in Sweden in 2016, allegedly working for a period of 6 weeks – paragraph 65 of his statement dated 29 April 2019;

Actual text of item 65 in my statement: “I had a similar demoralising experience back in 2016 in relation to a small job for a Swedish firm which my brother put me in touch with. That is something that should have taken a week or even less and which I was unable to complete within 6 weeks.”

Ceballos modified the statement so much that now it states basically the opposite. Dr Stonis brother took on a small project and asked for his help. However in 6 weeks Dr Stonis was not able to even set up the environment. “similar demoralising experience back” Ceballos presents as a good thing. Also quote “That is something that should have taken a week or even less and which I was unable to complete within 6 weeks” Ceballos presents as actual work.

I did not travel to Sweden in 2016, there was no and I took no role. I just tried to set up the development environment and failed. This is an essential difference. Ceballos takes the statement that someone can not do even a very simple task that he used to do very easily for his professional work before the injury and turns it into a false statement of employment. This makes an essential difference for my personal injury claim.

Despite it being completely incorrect it made its way to final PIC determination of damages. There were many incorrect statements like that.

Fake statement that I obtained employment after injury

From Ceballos appeal:

• The claimant was able to obtain employment after the accident. He was working 35 hours per week with the Lithuanian community at the time of the medical examination with Dr Samson Roberts on 4 February 2019;

From Ceballos particulars:

• He was working 35 hours per week with the Lithuanian Community in Australia at the time of the medical examination with Dr John Roberts on 4 February 2019;

This is not true. I did not get employed after the road traffic injury. Ceballos' statement has no basis. I made attempts to work on tiny projects for the community and failed them miserably. All this was addressed properly in Dr Roberts assessment with the same conclusion as Mr Wayne Mason. Dr Roberts wrote:

“In regard to employability Mr Stonis comments on having worked 35 hours that he tries but he is ineffective due to poor focus, I have considered him a Class 4 in this regard which based on current functioning would be 17% impairment to which I would add 1% for treatment because the treatment appears to have been relatively ineffectual which would be 18% permanent impairment”.

There was an upcoming referendum in Lithuania to allow double citizenship. It is very important for emigrants like me as if I want to take Australian citizenship I need to give up Lithuanian. I found out that there is a possibility to have a voting station in Sydney. I wanted to organise a petition to support it. I tried a few sites, but was not able to set up a petition properly. Then I thought maybe I will create my own tiny page to register interest in voting, but I was not able to do anything useful either. This was what I told Dr Roberts. To tell the truth it was very embarrassing to admit that I am completely useless. Dr John Roberts wrote about my ability to work:

“CURRENT ACTIVITIES: When questioned in this regard Mr Stonis stated that he was not at work; …, he did not consider that his ability in this regard had improved to the extent that he was capable of returning to work. …Mr Stonis commented on experiencing stress difficulties that he tends to panic; that he wants to return to work so he can earn money.”

Using different parts of the document to fake inconsistency

Here is an example from Ceballos appeal where medical notes are consistent, but Ceballos quotes different parts of the document to provide an illusion of inconsistency.

From Ceballos appeal:

• The issue of inconsistency. The claimant told Dr Khan that he was a self-employed software developer at the time of the accident. This is inconsistent with the history recorded by Mr Sutton on 21 March 2019 where the claimant says “he reports that this situation has prevented him from being able to focus on anything or be able to continue look for work – which he was doing at the time of the accident”;

The only inconsistency is in this Ceballos statement and it has more than one error.

There is record from Mr Sutton notes on 2019-03-28: “Discussed how he was updating his IT knowledge and working on a strat-up product at the time of accident”. This is exactly the same information told to Dr Khan and it is consistent through all records. I have seen Mr Sutton for many sessions and Dr Khan only for one assessment. Naturally I spoke about many more things with Mr Sutton. Ceballos selected a quote so that it is misleading.

Ceballos states that while being (self-)employed you can not look for a job. This is incorrect. The fact that I was looking for a job while being self-employed; is completely natural.

I did not see Mr Sutton on 2019-03-21. Ceballos writing an incorrect date makes it more difficult to verify his statement and to see that it is incorrect. There is very similar text about significance of road traffic injury on my mental health in Mr Sutton notes from 2018-03-21:

“He further reports that he feels the insurance company’s behaviour has been harassing and bullying – and this has actually been a re-traumatising experience given his ongoing fear and anxiety – making it even harder for him to face and deal with the whole issue – saying that there is now freezing fear just thinking about it – which causes his brain to just shut down to cope. He reports that this situation has prevented him from being able to focus on anything or be able to continue look work – which he was doing at time of accident – after getting over issue re his daughter and settling into new relationship.”

Same session notes ends with diagnosis: “Previous diagnosis of unresolved PTSD certainly appears confirmed. Needs work to help him finally deal with legal issues and get on with life.”

All this is covered in the report that was included in the assessment.

Dr. Khan is the surgeon who provided an assessment of the physical or the road traffic injury. However the mental health history was discussed in more detail by Assessor Mason. The statement by Ceballos is incorrect and not relevant.

Ceballos uses his previous incorrect statements as facts to create fake inconsistency with real facts

From Ceballos appeal:

5.1.6 He has not addressed in his reasons how the claimant’s pre-injury function of looking for work has changed as a result of the psychiatric injury, in circumstances where he continues to look for work and recently obtained project work with the Lithuanian Community.

This is simply not true. I got no project to work on with the Lithuanian Community. I tried to work on small tasks like setting up a petition and failed. The Assessor can not address the fake statement by Ceballos that he made after assessment and consider it in his assessment. Ceballos' request just does not make sense. Ceballos uses incorrect statements to create the illusion that some facts were not considered. It is impossible to defend any work or logic if it can be attacked by fake statements.

Taking some information out of context and exaggerating its applicability

From Ceballos appeal:

• The issue of inconsistency. According to the GP Mental Health Plan dated 8 April 2015, the claimant denied any history of anti-depressant medication. This is inconsistent with the history recorded in the clinical notes of Argyle Street Medical Centre where the claimant was prescribed with Cymbalta in 2011.

Ceballos' statement is incorrect.

I was prescribed Cymbalta in 2011. The GP gave me one leaf of tablets recommending that I take one a day. However, I was having a very painful headache the next day. So, I stopped. I told the GP during my next visit and he recommended not to take it. It is recorded in clinical notes Ceballos is referring to. (MAS 2R page 254, 255).

Mental health plan has no information about drugs I have tried once 5 years ago, it contains information only I was using at the time of the visit. During my visit to the GP on 2015-04-08 GP asked me questions:

Am I using antidepressants?
Have I been on antidepressants regularly in the past?

I talked about the drug I tried in 2011 (I could not remember the name and I was not sure if it was an antidepressant). GP dismissed it as irrelevant as I did not take it regularly. So she recorded accordingly: Not on antidepressant Never using antidepressant If I had used it regularly I would have known and remembered it properly and I would have told her about it. I talked about my past depression. I had no reason not to talk about medication if I had used it.

This is very different to “denied any history of anti-depressant medication”. Ceballos is presenting it as if I used that one prescription for 4 years. Ceballos knowing exaggerates a small issue, which to be honest is not an issue at all. However, he knowingly creates an incorrect impression.

Claiming that some information was not considered

From Ceballos appeal:

4.1.5 Assessor Mason has failed to consider the following relevant issues, which was clearly ventilated in the insurer’s reply to the application for permanent impairment dispute:

• The prior psychological histories contained in the clinical notes of Mr Steve Sutton, treating psychologist, and Argyle Street Medical Centre;

Assessor asked questions about my mental health history prior to injury. I do believe that my mental history was properly included. Assessor even included the review of Mr Steve Sutton report section 6 subsection A3 page 7. I have visited Argyle Street Medical Centre only to get the referral to see Mr Sutton - I think it was 2 visits. The visit to GP before the injury in 2015 has no record of any mental health problems at that time: "A8 Clinical Notes of Poets Corner Medical Centre.pdf" page 6:

Monday January 19
2015 16:41:57
Dr. Susana Tjandra
mole at right leg
- has changed the size no bleed no itchy nil h/o skin CAfh
- nil P;/ advise to have it removed

Claims his assumptions as a fact and then complains that his assumption are not met

From Ceballos appeal:

5. ADAPTATION

5.1.1 Assessor Mason recorded the following under Adaptation: “Mr Stonis said he is unable to work in his previous occupation as a software developer. My impression of him during the interview was not one of a person who has completed a PHD in computer science. He appears to struggle with basic concepts. He reported he does very little in the maintenance of the household and relies heavily on his wife”.

This is true.

5.1.2 The above history assumes that the claimant was engaged in full time employment as a software developer at the time of the accident.

This is not true. The assessment has a record that I was working on my own project. Ceballos' assumption is incorrect and conflicts with the facts. I was seeking employment when I got injured. I was not sure that continuing working on my own project was the best way to go forward as at that time I had already properly updated my technical skills to the newest technologies.

The implication by Ceballos that I was fully employed by another company at that time is inconsistent with his own statements including the following one and incorrect.

5.1.3 The claimant ceased work in 2011 due to his depression. He was not engaged in paid employment at the time of the motor accident on 30 March 2015.

I stopped working for personal reasons in 2011 and depression was one of them. However, it was in 2011. I had lots of time to get over depression (as mentioned in Mr Suttons report), get my life in balance (including extensive travels, time for hobbies and use all legal ways to solve issues with daughter), establish stable relationship with Juste (applied for de faction visa in 2014) and start working on my project. If there would be no road traffic injury I would have another twist in my career working as a consultant (that would be full time employment) and by now I would have my own company and would be selling my own products.

Ceballos adds an incorrect assumption to mislead and provide an illusion of error where there is none. This pattern is repeated many times in his appeal and particulars.

Claims that some information was not provided

Ceballos claims on many occasions that some information like passport copies, tax returns or information about meet-ups including the one I was going to when I got injured was not provided. However, this information was provided both by emails and being uploaded onto the PIC portal. See more details in lists of incorrect statements in documents provided by Ceballos.

Professional misconduct - Collusion/Corruption

Ceballos provided false information about mental health status, misquoted medical documents and statements and provided false statements reducing severity of injury. The information about actions of solicitors representing me can be found in other complaints. Here is short summary of Ceballos actions:

Ceballos ordered a very fraudulent report from Moodley where the main impact seems to be to help Law Partners to push to settle.
Ceballos submitted a PIC application with the compensation for claim set to 0, again seems to help Law Partners to push to settle.
Ceballos re-submitted insurance solicitor particulars for the PIC assessment conference full of factual errors. I got a copy of it on 2023-06-13. The only logical explanation for such actions is that he knew that Livers will not dispute it and Macken will accept it.
Ceballos pushed for the Moodley report to be used at the PIC assessment conference on 2023-06-28, despite knowing how fraudulent it is. He could do it only knowing that there will be no resistance from Livers and Macken.

I am still collecting evidence about what went wrong at the PIC assessment conference on 2023-06-28.

Attachments

All the documents, with exception of this complaint and the updated list of incorrect statements by Ceballos are already available to OLSC. Ceballos has all documents related to his actions with the exception of the list of incorrect statements. I repeat a few documents just for faster access.

Documents submitted by Ceballos

2021-04-14 - Letter to c sols serving PIC Application - appeal to assessment.pdf

2023-06-13 Ceballos particulars - 0845_001.pdf