Paul M. Fires

Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances. 

Successfully defended against an appeal filed by the Claimant. In this matter, the Claimant sustained an injury to her face and eye. WCJ terminated compensation in accordance with an IME of full recovery. In response to Claimant’s appeal, the WCAB reviewed the evidence of record, and concluded that the WCJ did not err, and his decision was supported by his credibility determinations of the witnesses involved. The WCAB also highlighted that the Claimant bore the burden of establishing a causal relation between her work and additional alleged injuries by unequivocal medical evidence, which was unable to be met by virtue of the WCJ’s rejection of her medical experts’ testimony. The WCAB went on to conclude that there was adequate evidence to support the WCJ’s findings, and rejected Claimant’s assertion of error from a substantial evidence perspective. Once the decision is final, the client will be able to pursue a sizable supersedeas reimbursement sum, which is expected to exceed $40,000.

Won a major victory for a client involving a substantial prescription opiate abuse scheme by an injured worker.  The woman in question was filling multiple prescriptions simultaneously from different medical providers and using various pharmacies. The belief is that she was not consuming them. The Judge in question eliminated the employer’s responsibility for payment of the drugs, past, present and future, limited substantially the scope of her injuries and ordered a credit for overpayments made to the injured worker.    

Received a favorable ruling from the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board when it denied the late employee’s appeal seeking imposition of both lifetime and death benefits and substantial medical benefits. The issue was whether the worker developed stage 3B adenocarcinoma as a result of exposure to various substances, all alleged to be highly toxic, and many of which are used in a client's manufacturing process. The underlying ruling was that the worker's adenocarcinoma, which eventually metastasized and caused her death, was due to her years of cigarette smoking and not her years of alleged exposure to multiple other substances in the workplace.