Evan D. Dalzell

Successfully argued for the application of the “personal animus” defense in the setting of a Fatal Claim Petition filed by the dependents of a worker who was tragically ambushed, shot, and killed while in the parking lot outside her place of employment late at night after the conclusion of her shift. Evidence suggested that the homicide was carried out by the worker’s ex-boyfriend, also the father of her dependent children, who was enraged when the worker recently broke off their relationship. This individual went on to commit suicide in the days following the attack and was therefore unavailable as a witness. Evan carefully analyzed witness statements and investigation reports prepared by state and local law enforcement, and personally presented fact witness testimony from no fewer than five (5) members of law enforcement who were involved in the investigation. That testimony included, but was not limited to, the results of ballistic testing on the weapon found on the ex-boyfriend following his suicide, which matched up with the bullets that caused the worker’s death. The testimonies of these witnesses established that the ex-boyfriend was the only subject of the homicide investigation and that he was, with reasonable certainty, the shooter. Through direct and cross-examination of other fact witnesses familiar with the relationship between the worker and the ex-boyfriend, it clearly established that the attack was carried out as the result of personal animosity by the ex-boyfriend against the worker, and that the attack was not in any way related to the worker’s employment. The Fatal Claim Petition was denied both at trial by the assigned Workers’ Compensation Judge and on appeal by the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, resulting in zero liability for the client for workers’ compensation benefits despite substantial exposure. 

Successfully terminated a client’s liability for wage loss and medical benefits associated with an injury sustained by a worker who was transferring a patient between sitting and standing when she felt pain in her low back. After an initial period of being out of work entirely, the worker eventually returned to part-time work under restrictions from her treating physician. An independent medical evaluation (IME) concluded that the work-related lumbar strain had resolved such that the worker required no additional medical testing or treatment and was capable of resuming full-time, full-duty work. Nevertheless, the treating physician refused to release the worker to full-time employment, due to the worker’s ongoing subjective complaints, and the treating physician continued ordering costly treatments such as various therapies and injections, and the worker continued to receive partial disability wage loss benefits associated with her reduced earnings. Through cross-examination of the treating physician, it was established that the physician never documented any objective findings either on clinical examination or radiographic testing to substantiate his ongoing diagnoses or the worker’s ongoing subjective complaints. The assigned Workers’ Compensation Judge rejected the treating physician’s testimony and the conflicting testimony of the worker, in favor of the testimony of the IME physician, and terminated the worker’s benefits effective the date of the IME. This fully favorable and un-appealed decision entitled the client to pursue reimbursement from the Supersedeas Fund in excess of $50,000.00.