Experience

• Successfully settled an occupational exposure claim in which the employee alleged exposure to heavy metals causing severe sinusitis.  Various air monitoring testing and the employee’s lab work revealed exposure to heavy metals.  The claim was settled pursuant to a Section 20 settlement.  The settlement prevented an indefinite payment of possible future medications and treatment for the alleged injury.

• Successfully defended a claim before the Appellate Division affirming a Trial Court's decision that a Bihler operator did not suffer hearing loss during the course and scope of his employment. The Judge of Compensation found a lack of credible evidence to prove petitioner suffered physical injuries and hearing loss as a result of excessive noise exposure based on petitioner’s inconsistent testimony, the records of the treating doctors, and petitioner’s expert testimony, which provided no basis for the diagnosis, as well as an inconsistent narrative of the facts of the case. The Appellate Court held that the judge's factual and credibility findings were amply supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record, and there was no basis to disturb them.

• Successfully tried a Motion for lack of coverage.  In this matter, petitioner alleged injuries sustained in a MVA.  The claim was denied as petitioner, the owner of the company, had excluded himself from coverage under the policy.  Nonetheless, following the accident, petitioner claimed that he did not know that he specifically excluded himself from coverage. Emails were submitted to the court indicating that petitioner was given information about different policy premiums for coverage and non-coverage.  The emails further indicated that he had previously excluded himself on an earlier policy.  The motion was tried and testimony was taken both from the insurance broker and of the petitioner. The Judge did not find the petitioner credible noting that he frequently changed his answers when confronted with documents that contradicted his assertions. As such, the Judge granted our dismissal with prejudice.  Respondent avoided being on the hook for payment of medical treatment for multiple injuries and temporary disability benefits.