Experience

• Successfully defended against a Claim and Penalty Petition for a significant low back injury wherein the claimant underwent surgery during the litigation and before the IME. The Workers' Compensation Judge denied the Claim and Penalty Petitions outright finding the claimant not credible. The judge relied heavily on the inconsistencies noted during cross-examination of the claimant and believed the employer’s theory that this was an incident, not a disabling injury, which was supported by fact witness testimony. The judge also found the claimant’s expert not credible, noting the expert’s opinion was based upon an inaccurate understanding of the medical history. As a result, our client was not responsible for any wage loss benefits, medical bills including surgery, or litigation costs, resulting in savings of well over $150,000.00 in back-due benefits.

• Defended against a Claim and Penalty Petition and prevailed on a Termination Petition involving an upper extremity injury, surgical treatment and serial bureau documents. The Workers’ Compensation Judge found the claimant not credible, outright, noting the inconsistencies between the claimant’s testimony on cross-examination and the objective medical and gym records. The Workers’ Compensation Judge also found the claimant’s expert not credible, outright, also noting that the expert’s opinion was based upon inaccurate understanding of the medical history.  As a result, our client was not responsible for any wage loss nor the surgery the claimant underwent and was able to avoid potentially significant medical exposure moving forward.

• Successfully defended a Claim Petition, alleging a low back and right arm injuries with ongoing disability. The case involved factual, legal, and medical issues. The Workers’ Compensation Judge denied the Claim Petition outright finding that the claimant was not credible and did not sustain a work injury. Specifically, the Judge found the claimant’s allegations incredulous when considering the inconsistencies between his testimony and the fact witnesses as well as his evasiveness on cross-examination. As a result, the employer was not responsible for any wage loss benefits, medical bills, or litigation costs, resulting in savings of nearly $100,000.00.