Case Results

312-425-3131

10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 900, Chicago, IL 60603

211 Landmark Drive, Suite C2, Normal, IL 61761

211 North Broadway, Suite 2200, St. Louis, MO 63102

Facebook Linkedin

Margaret Rappe v. Sharon Healthcare Woods

Attorney Noah Hamann proved at trial that the petitioner subjected herself to a greater risk of injury and thus, the petitioner was not entitled to any benefits. Specifically, petitioner alleged that on March 3, 2013 she was injured walking from her car to the employer’s front door as she began her shift. She testified that she tripped on a loose brick that was covered by ice and snow. She was seeking a right knee replacement.

Prior to trial, Attorney Hamann personally visited the accident site and met with witnesses. He learned that the pathway taken by the petitioner to the front door was unusual. The employee did not park in the employee designated parking area on the date of accident. Instead, she parked in a loading zone that was much closer to the front door because the respondent alleged, she did not want to walk from the farther employee parking area because of snowy and cold weather conditions.

Additionally, when the petitioner parked in the loading zone, she had access to a shoveled sidewalk from her car to the front door. However, to take a shorter path, the petitioner cut through a grassy area, where she fell.

Mark Karnes v Wright Tree Service

Julia McCarthy and Noah Hamann obtained a favorable verdict from the Illinois Appellate Court in Mark Karnes v. Wright Tree Service, 03-13-0140WC. All issues were in dispute on an appeal by the petitioner following victories by the defense at Arbitration, the Commission and the Peoria County Circuit Court. During the appeal process petitioner’s attorney was unwilling to settle for anything other than full trial value and continued medical treatment involving a left shoulder acromioplasty. Petitioner’s last settlement demand was $100,000.00.

The case involved two alleged dated of accidents, 10/18/06 affecting the left shoulder and 4/7/07 affecting the right elbow and left shoulder. In the 2006 incident, petitioner claimed he was holding a chainsaw in his right hand while cutting branches that he was holding in his left hand. The petitioner claimed that when he sawed the branch, it dropped and the petitioner felt a pop in his left shoulder. With regard to the 2007 incident, the petitioner denied any acute injury but complained of general soreness to his right elbow and left shoulder as a result of his work duties. The petitioner attempted to argue that the 2007 condition was a continuation of the 2006 condition.

At arbitration, Julia McCarthy was able to show that no 2006 accident occurred. Through witness testimony, it was shown that the company had clear procedures in place for reporting injuries. The petitioner knew these procedures since he reported an injury following the alleged 2007 accident. In 2007 an accident report was filed, a workers’ compensation claim was submitted to the insurance carrier and the petitioner was given medical treatment. Attorney McCarthy used this information to show that had a 2006 accident occurred, similar procedures would have been followed.

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.

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.

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.

  • Chicago Bar Association
  • Workers' Compensation Lawyers Association
  • IRTB
  • DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar
  • The Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel
  • Illinois Self-Insurers' Association
  • Chicago Bar Association
  • Workers' Compensation Lawyers Association
  • IRTB
  • DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar
  • The Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel
  • Illinois Self-Insurers' Association
10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 312-425-3131
211 Landmark Drive, Suite C2
Normal, IL 61761
Phone: 309-862-4914
One Metropolitan Square
211 North Broadway, Suite 2200
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: 314-300-0527
Back to Top