1. Duzoan Jackson v. Continental Air Transport (89 WC 41913)
It was undisputed
that the petitioner had an accident in which she fell onto her knees
and hit her head. The only dispute was whether petitioner suffered
any permanent impairment from the injury. The arbitrator held that
the petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof that she had any
permanent impairment from her fall. The arbitrator's decision was based
primarily on cross-examination of the petitioner as to her termination
as respondent's employee and her motives for filing a workers' compensation
claim. The decision was appealed by the petitioner and affirmed by
the Industrial Commission (91 IIC 2313).
2. Brenda
Thomas v. Disc Jockey and the Wax Works, Inc. (90 WC 7245, 90 WC
9994)
It was undisputed
that the petitioner slipped and fell in a shopping mall parking lot
while an employee of the respondent. The petitioner alleged that she
had slipped on ice in an area of the parking lot that was designated
for mall employees to park. The arbitrator found that there was no
increased risk to the petitioner compared to all mall customers and
held that the petitioner's accident did not arise out of or in the
course of her employment. The arbitrator's decision was based on cross-examination
testimony by the petitioner regarding where, when and how she fell.
The Industrial Commission affirmed the arbitrator's decision (92 IIC
1635).
3. Jody
Dugger v. Carlinville Area Hospital (92 WC 19533)
The petitioner was
diagnosed with hepatitis C and alleged that on September 1, 1997, she
was exposed to the hepatitis C virus at work. She was diagnosed with
hepatitis C in April of 1991. Petitioner testified that in the early
1980's she had a needle stick from a needle that had been used by a
patient infected with hepatitis B. She further indicated that she had
worked with two patients on a regular basis that had been tested positive
for hepatitis C. Medical testimony from both petitioner and respondent
doctors indicated that up to 40% of hepatitis C cases are idiopathic
or of an unknown source. The arbitrator found that the petitioner's
testimony was not credible and as a result ruled that she failed to
prove she was exposed to a hepatitis C virus, at work. In affirming
the arbitrator's decision, the Commission held while the petitioner
worked with two patients who were diagnosed with hepatitis C there
was no indication of any work exposure during the relevant period of
time. Therefore, the Commission affirmed the arbitrator's decision.
(94 IIC 0809).
4. Lorraine
Burkhardt v. Brach & Brock Confections. (96 WC 17748)
The petitioner alleged
that she sustained injury to her hands bilaterally as a result of repetitive
trauma to the extent that she would be unable to return to her regular
job. She was a wage differential with exposure in excess of $150,000.00.
It was her testimony at trial that she had worked in excess of 20 years
on an assembly line gathering and moving small chocolate candies from
a conveyor belt. We obtained an onsite job video of the exact job and
secured depositions of our independent medical evaluator who did not
believe that there was a causal relationship and the treating doctor,
who in fact did believe there was a causal relationship. The Arbitrator
reviewed the videotape and found the opinion of the treating doctor
to be inconsistent as to what the tape actually depicted and what the
petitioner had advised the doctor what the actual job was. The Arbitrator
found that the evaluating physician had an opportunity to review the
videotape and was properly educated as to what the exact job was. As
a result, the Arbitrator adopted the findings of the independent medical
evaluator, who found that the petitioner’s present condition
of ill-being was not causally related to the injury that was alleged.
The decision was affirmed by the Illinois Industrial Commission.
5. James
Ashburn v. Film Products Corp. (97 WC 9072)
The petitioner alleged
an injury to his low back which occurred on January 24, 1997 and resulted
in a herniated disc and subsequent surgery. The arbitrator found that
the only evidence that the petitioner introduced with regard to an
on the job injury on January 24, 1997 was his own testimony. However,
according to the arbitrator, the petitioner's testimony was impeached
by (1) medical records that were devoid of any occupational involvement
until over 4 months after the alleged occurrence and (2) testimony
of a respondent witness. In addition, cross-examination of the petitioner
proved other inconsistencies and the arbitrator eventually held that
the petitioner was not a credible witness. Compensation was denied.
This case was taken all the way through the Illinois Appellate Court,
wherein a mandate was issued by the Appellate Court of the Third District
of Illinois on July 11, 2001 affirming the decision at all levels.
6. Timothy
Dupree v. Brach’s Confections, Inc. (99 WC 21643, 00 WC 07386)
The petitioner testified
that he worked for the respondent for 33 years. He testified that a
significant portion of his duties involved operating a forklift and
that he was required to operate the forklift in a reverse fashion for
approximately 90% of the time. He indicated that as a result, he would
have to look behind him when the forklift was in reverse. The petitioner
was claiming an accident date of March 26, 1999 and May 19, 1999. He
eventually was diagnosed with a herniated disc at C5-6 and underwent
a fusion surgery. The petitioner had two treating doctors indicating
that his current condition of ill-being was a result of his work duties.
However, in depositions, neither was willing to testify to this opinion
within a reasonable degree of medical and surgical certainty, but rather
indicated that the theory was “plausible.” Witnesses testified
that the petitioner’s interpretation of what the job was to be
was grossly exaggerated and videotape of the job seemed to corroborate
the testimony of respondent’s witnesses. The Arbitrator found
that in neither case did the petitioner sustain an accident arising
out of his employment with the respondent and all benefits were denied.
A review was taken and the decision was affirmed.
7. Kara
Bismarck-Thurbursh (00 WC 4701)
The petitioner claimed
that on October 1, 1999 the respondent was in the process of moving
their offices. According to the petitioner, she moved a printer in
order to unplug the machine to go to the other office and that shortly
thereafter she noted her muscles were sore and achy in her shoulders,
neck and upper back. It was acknowledged that she had three prior back
surgeries, including fusion in the cervical area and that she had been
taking pain medication. However, she testified that as a result of
the accident on October 1, 1999, she was not able to return to work
and in fact at trial was claiming to be permanently and totally disabled.
Two witnesses were called to testify on behalf of the Respondent as
it pertained to the actual occurrence and acts and events that the
petitioner testified to. The petitioner’s testimony was impeached
in a number of instances through medical documentation and testimony
of respondent’s witnesses. As a result, the Arbitrator found
that the petitioner did not sustain an accident that arose out of her
employment with the respondent on October 1, 1999 and found against
any lost time, medical and the permanent total that the petitioner
was claiming as a result of the alleged injury of October 1, 1999.
A review was taken by the petitioner. Due to the fact that there was
a tremendous amount of exposure in excess of $200,000.00, the case
was settled for a nominal amount and the Petition for Review was withdrawn.
8. Miquel
Estrada v. Brach & Brock Confections (01 WC 00047)
The petitioner testified
that on July 27, 2000, he was struck by a fork-lift wherein he sustained
injury to his right shoulder. The accident and any and all reasonable
and necessary treatment for the shoulder was accepted and paid for
by the Respondent. Approximately eight months after the accident, the
petitioner began to note numbness and tingling to his right upper extremity
in the elbow and hand. He began to seek treatment for these symptoms,
however, treatment was denied by Respondent as not being causally related
to the injury of July 27, 2000. Petitioner was eventually diagnosed
with cubital tunnel and carpal tunnel syndrome. At trial, the petitioner
testified that at the time of the injury, he had no elbow or hand pain.
On cross-examination, medical records established and the petitioner
testified that he did not realize symptoms of numbness and tingling
to the right upper extremity until June of 2001 nearly one year after
the original injury. While the Arbitrator did find that the right shoulder
was related to the injury of July 27, 2000, he found that the respondent
has not liable to pay for any necessary medical services that would
involve treatment for the right elbow and/or right wrist. The petitioner
reviewed the Arbitrator’s decision and the Illinois Industrial
Commission affirmed the Arbitrator’s findings.
1994
August 4 & 5,
1994 Evolution of Illinois Workers' Compensation Act. From Then To
Now - National Seal Corporation, Galesburg, Illinois, CNA insured.
December 8, 1994
Basic Aspects of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act -- Presented
to
Universal Underwriters claim staff.
1995
February 21, 1995
Strategies for Resolution of Workers' Compensation Claims -- Presented
to Alexsis claims staff.
August 3, 1995 Illinois
Workers' Compensation Case Law Changes - Presented to Alexsis claims
staff.
1996
August 29, 1996 Basic
Aspects of Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act – Presented
to
American Stores claims staff.
November 13, 1996
Basic Strategies for Taking Effective Recorded Statement -- Presented
to
Dominick's claims staff.
1997
June 17, 1997 Basic
Aspect of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act and Case Law Update
- Presented to CNA Insurance claims staff and CNA clients.
December 9, 1997
Structure of Industrial Commission and General Information about its
Operation – Presented to Illinois Claims Managers Association.
1998
February 3, 1998
Overview of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act, analysis
of “arising out of” and “in the course of” -
Presented to Universal Underwriters claims staff.
August 28, 1998 The
Compensability of Recreational Activity Under Section 11 of the Act – Presented
to Dominick’s claims staff.
1999
January 22, 1999
The Impact of the McMahan Decision on Claims Involving Disputed Medical
Issues: Presented to Illinois Compensation Trust claims staff.
September 29, 1999
Mock Trial/Trial Techniques presented to Workers' Compensation
Claims Association.
2000
February 21, 2000
Mock Trial/Trial Techniques: Presented to worker's compensation staff
at
RSKCo.
August 24, 2000 Mock
Trial/Trial Techniques: Presented to several local adjusters in the
Indianapolis area.
September 14, 2000
Mock Trial/Trial Techniques: Presented to workers’ compensation
staff at
Chubb Insurance.
October 25, 2000
A Workers’ Compensation Case at the Illinois Industrial Commission
From Start to Finish: Presented to Tokio Marine Insurance adjusters
and a group of their insureds.
2001
October 4, 2001 Mock
Trial/Trial Techniques – Presented to numerous risk managers.
2002
January 24, 2002
Accident Investigation and Recorded Statements for Claims Adjusters – Presented
to Kemper Insurance claims staff.
June 25, 2002 Mock
Trial/Trial Techniques/Accident Investigation and Recorded Statements
- Presented to OSI Management Conference.