Travis Reynolds v Porter Installations

Attorney Noah Hamann prevailed on the issue of accident at arbitration and on appeal against petitioner’s claim of a right shoulder injury. Petitioner Travis Reynolds worked as a cable installer for the respondent. He alleged that on November 9, 2011, he was injured while lifting a 90-pound ladder on to the top of his work vehicle. The accident was timely reported.

During his investigation, attorney Hamann visited the accident site and inspected the petitioner’s work vehicle. He learned that it was highly unlikely that the petitioner engaged in overhead lifting on the date of accident. The petitioner’s work vehicle was equipped with a safety mechanism that was designed for the petitioner to load his ladder on the vehicle at waist to chest height. Once the ladder was on the mechanism, the petitioner turned a crank that then lifted the ladder on to the top of the vehicle.

Attorney Hamann produced a compelling video of the safety device usage at the time of trial. The video showed how the ladder is placed onto the vehicle with minimal lifting. The respondent also produced the petitioner’s supervisor as a trial witness to testify about the petitioner’s duties and the authenticity of the video.

Pamela Shane v. Kelly Services

Noah P. Hamann successfully defended petitioner’s claim of a right knee injury requiring arthroscopic surgery, loose body removal and a partial medical meniscectomy by proving no causation between the accident and the condition of ill being. The respondent successfully argued that the petitioner sustained only a minor strain on the date of accident and that the need for surgery was not work related. On June 17, 2014, Arbitrator Gallagher rendered a decision awarding only one emergency room medical bill from the date of accident. All other benefits were denied.

Petitioner alleged that on May 16, 2011 she slipped on a puddle of water caused by a leaking air conditioner unit. The petitioner testified that when she stepped in the puddle with her left foot, her right foot went underneath her body, which caused the right knee to twist awkwardly. Petitioner claims she told her supervisor on the date of accident that her knee was injured.

The respondent produced the petitioner’s supervisor as a witness at trial. He testified that the petitioner told him that her right ankle was injured on the date of accident, but that she never mentioned the right knee. He testified that a Form 45 was completed on the date of accident based on his conversation with the petitioner. The Form 45 referenced only an ankle injury.

Francisco Gomez v. Labor Temp South

While working at a parts plant, petitioner was assigned to clean a designated area. While cleaning the area, petitioner stood on top of a dunnage (pallet) and allegedly fell three feet to the ground, injuring his left shoulder. Petitioner received treatment for his left shoulder injury and was eventually referred to an orthopedic surgeon for a surgical consultation.

Petitioner testified that he noticed a stack of dunnage lids sitting next to the dunnage which were askew. He climbed on top of the dunnage to straighten the stack when he misstepped and fell from the dunnage. Petitioner testified that he was instructed by his immediate supervisor to straighten the area out, and was not instructed to refrain from climbing on top of dunnages.

The plant manager was put on the witness stand, and testified that immediately after the accident he investigated the scene. Petitioner indicated which dunnage he fell from, and the plant manager noted this was the only single stacked dunnage in the area. The plant manager testified that this area was shut down for cleaning, and no materials were taken in or out of the location. Upon investigation, the plant manager noted that there were no footprints on top of the dunnage which petitioner claimed he had climbed upon to straighten the stack of lids. Photographs were taken of the area. A witness stepped forward and informed the plant manager that he saw petitioner rising from the ground 10 to 15 feet away from the dunnage that petitioner claimed he fell from.

Maria Salgado v. Filtration Group Inc.

The petitioner alleged in this case bilateral rotator cuff tears as a result of two separate theories of accident. The petitioner alleged a one-time accident that involved lifting a box of filters, as well as the repetitive trauma of assembling filters. The respondent argued through the independent medical examination report that the petitioner’s actions could not have caused bilateral rotator cuff tears due to the mechanism of injury.

Respondent also denied compensability based upon the fact that the petitioner complained of disliking her new work area prior to the alleged accident and never reported an accident to her supervisor, co-workers or human resources manager.

The arbitrator found that no accident occurred and a “zero” award was secured. The arbitrator relied upon the testimony of the respondent’s H.R. manager, petitioner’s supervisor and a co worker over the testimony of the petitioner and her husband.

Francisek Filipkowski v. Tru Vue

The Commission recently affirmed an arbitrator decision finding fully in favor of respondent Tru Vue in a case where the petitioner was alleging he was permanently and totally disabled and requesting benefits at the rate of $1035 per week for the rest of his life with a life expectancy of approximately 25 years. The petitioner alleged that shortly before his lay off he was pushing an object at work causing significant back pain. He admitted not telling anybody at work at the time of the alleged occurrence and through cross-examination we were able to establish that he was aware of the work requirement to do so and showed significant ability for him to have done so if the accident would’ve occurred as alleged. Through witness preparation and testimony during Respondent’s case in chief, we were able to show that the petitioner made no complaints of any back pain prior to his report of an inability to work due to back pain. His initial report to the respondent was actually through his daughter and made no mention of any work incident. It was not until several months later when a therapist requested payment for a bill that there was any notice to the respondent that the petitioner was claiming a work injury. Case law prevented a viable notice defense because the respondent was aware of the injury within 45 days even though there was no report that it was work related.