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

John P. Connolly successfully defended an elevator manufacturer in a case involving an elevator repairman who underwent an arthroscopic repair of the anterior labrum and debridement of the posterior tears of the shoulder.

The petitioner underwent physical therapy, returned to work with restrictions, and eventually was released to full duty.

Prior to trial, the petitioner demanded 45% loss of use of the arm, or $60,052.25.  This matter proceeded to trial regarding the nature and extent of the petitioner's alleged condition of ill-being.  Although the petitioner testified that he continued to have difficulty in performing his day-to-day responsibilities and needed assistance to perform his job.  Respondent successfully rebutted the petitioner's allegations with medical evidence as well as the testimony of a co-worker.  Petitioner's co-worker testified that he did not observe anything unusual or that the petitioner had any limitations in performing his job duties.

 Respondent recommended that the Arbitrator award 22.5% loss of use of the arm.  The Arbitrator, in essence, adopted the respondent's position awarding the petitioner 25% loss of use of the arm, or $33,362.36.  This resulted in a savings to the respondent/employer in the amount of $26,689.89.

John P. Connolly successfully defended the employer in a claim involving an altercation between a teacher and students. The Arbitrator rejected the petitioner's claim for hearing loss, additional lost time, and future medical benefits.

Petitioner, a teacher for the respondent, was involved in an altercation which resulted in her slipping and falling.  There existed ongoing disputes regarding whether the petitioner suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and whether the petitioner had sustained hearing loss due to the altercation and fall.  After securing the evidence depositions of the treating and examining physicians, the matter proceeded to trial. 

At trial, the petitioner sought workers' compensation benefits totaling $69,685.30 representing 10 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, outstanding medical benefits, and 20% loss of use of the person as a whole.

The respondent was successful in rejecting the petitioner's request for additional medical and temporary total disability benefits and the Arbitrator awarded permanent partial disability benefits in the amount of 3% loss of use of the person as a whole, or $8,518.05.

Arbitrator finds no accident or causal connection in exposure claim

In Vincent Glaviano vs. Dulin Metals Company, 97 WC 60265, the petitioner alleged that he was exposed to metals and chemical solvents during his work as a plant manager.  He testified that this exposure caused fatigue, numbness in his upper arms, face and legs, memory loss, inability to focus and loss of fine motor skills.  The petitioner was plant manager for the respondent from February of 1996 through July 17, 1997.  The respondent is a broker, trader and dealer of industrial scrap metal.  The petitioner claimed he was entitled to $246,000 in TTD benefits and maximum wage differential benefits with a present cash value of $275,000. 

Arbitrator Cronin did not find the petitioner to be credible.  A representative of the insured testified that the petitioner spent little time touching metals or solvents and that the metals and solvents he did touch were not dangerous.  This contradicted the testimony of the petitioner.  There were many inconsistencies in the medical treatment records regarding complaints of his condition, including some complaints that were anatomically impossible.  The petitioner was not believable when discussing his search for employment and his inability to perform tasks.  As such, Arbitrator Cronin did not find that petitioner sustained any accident that arose out of and in the course of the petitioner's employment. 

The Arbitrator also found that the petitioner's condition was not causally connected to his employment.  The petitioner's treating physician testified that the petitioner was suffering from multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS).  This assertion was refuted by the respondent's examining physician.  Arbitrator Cronin was also made aware of the 2005 case of Bernardoni vs. Industrial Commission, 362 Ill.App.3rd 582, 840 N.E. 2nd 300 (Ill.App.3 Dist. 2005), in which the 3rd District Appellate Court 22874.28 stated that MCS was not sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the medical community.  It was argued to Arbitrator Cronin that the petitioner provided no evidence that since the Bernardoni decision that this diagnosis had gained general acceptance in the medical community. 

Successful in defending a case before the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission in the case of Michael McIntyre v. Fluor Maintenance

Mark Vizza was successful in defending a case before the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission in the case of Michael McIntyre v. Fluor Maintenance.  The case was tried before Arbitrator Hennessy in Joliet, and Arbitrator Hennessy found that the petitioner failed to prove that he suffered an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent.  The petitioner filed an appeal to the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission and the panel of Susan Pigott, James DeMunno, and Nancy Lindsay, issued a unanimous decision upholding Arbitrator Hennessy's decision.

The petitioner alleges that on July 24, 2003, he suffered an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent.  However, by his own testimony, there was nothing to establish that anything occurred on that particular day.  The petitioner did testify that prior to that, he had a neck problem and had surgery and returned to work full duty.  He indicated that some time in June 2003, he began having pain in his neck when he hit his head on scaffolding and/or low pipes.  He testified that this continued through July 9, 2003, at which time it got worse when he was working on his computer at home, turned his head and felt something pop in this neck.  The petitioner testified that subsequent to this, his neck continued to get worse.  He did file a written statement which indicates that he did not know on what day he hit his head on a scaffold bar and that he went to the doctor on July 23, 2003, which was one day before the alleged accident.  A representative of the employer testified that he had a conversation with the petitioner, and he indicated that he did not know when or where he hurt his neck and that he only filled out the accident report because the union wanted him to fill it out.   The medical records showed that the petitioner sought treatment on July 9, 2003, when he had neck and shoulder pain for ten days, and at that time it was becoming worse with an incident at his computer.  The medical records also show that there was no change in MRIs of the petitioner's neck from October 25, 2001, and one done on July 25, 2003.  The arbitrator further found that the petitioner had provided no medical documentation regarding whether or not his current condition of ill-being was causally connected to the July 24, 2003, incident.  The Commission upheld the arbitrator's finding on causal connection, as well as accident and all other issues.

BCM prevails: Truck driver is not entitled to a wage differential

Peter J. Stavropoulos prevailed on this case at trial and before the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission. Richard Showen vs. Schwerman Trucking Co., No. 07 IWCC 0825 (Commission decision filed on June 28, 2007).

The petitioner suffered a back injury on July 30, 2002, when his truck hit a pothole entering the customer's lot. Petitioner testified that he hit his head on the ceiling of the truck and then landed back in his seat, resulting in a low back injury. Petitioner was off work from February 4, 2002, through February 17, 2002, at which time his treating physician released him to return to work full duty. Petitioner did work full duty until October of 2002, when there was a company wide layoff due to the seasonal nature of the job.

Fourteen months after his last visit, petitioner returned to the doctor on April 3, 2003. In that month, petitioner worked only 3 days due to his complaints of pain. Also in April of 2003, the facility out of which the petitioner was dispatched was permanently closed.

  • 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