Managing Partners

Partners

Associates

Of Counsel

To learn more about Hennessy & Roach services, reach us at:

Chicago:       312-346-5310
Fax:                312-346-5330

St. Louis:      314-231-0770
Fax:                314-231-0990

Springfield:  217-726-0037
Fax:                217-726-0137
 ______________________
140 S Dearborn St.,   7th Floor
Chicago, IL 60603

Jason D. Kolecke
jkolecke@hennessyroach.com

• Bachelor of Sciences - Criminology, Sociology - 1996 Marquette University
• Juris Doctor - 2001 - John Marshall Law School
• Admitted to practice in Illinois, 2001

Practice Areas

Defence of Worker's Compensation & General Liability Matters

Significant Arbitration Decisions

1. John Carl v. J.W. Trenching (98 WC 30356)

The Industrial Commission overturned the Arbitrator’s decision to reinstate petitioner’s claim after it had been dismissed for want of prosecution. Petitioner alleged that even though it was clearly apparent that his attorney received notice of the dismissal and did not file for reinstatement in a timely manner, that because his attorney was mentally incompetent at the time he received notice, that the case should be reinstated. The Commission found that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that petitioner’s attorney was incompetent at the time the dismissal notice was received and therefore, the Arbitrator was acting outside his jurisdiction when he reinstated the claim.

2. Thomas Rieck v. Professional Plumbing (01 WC 30356)

Petitioner filed an Application for Adjustment of Claim for an injury considered loss of use t the Man as a Whole. Prior to settlement of that claim, petitioner died of unrelated cause and left no heirs entitled to the proceeds of the Worker’s Compensation Claim. Petitioner’s estate attempted to step in the place of petitioner and adjudicate the claim. Respondent filed a motion for dismissal of claim based on the fact that Petitioner died, leaving no heirs entitled to the proceeds under Illinois Law. The Arbitrator found in favor respondent and dismissed that claim.

3. John Klein v. Klein Construction (00 WC 58441)

Petitioner filed a section 19(b) motion and section 8(a) motion demanding a third surgery and payment of temporary total disability payments. Respondent argued that petitioner had treated beyond the two doctors allowed under the act and further argued that the desired surgery was not causally connected to the injury, nor was it reasonable and necessary based on the totality of the evidence. The Arbitrator opined in favor of respondent finding that the third surgery was neither causally connected nor reasonable, thus denying the procedure and the request for Temporary Total Disability benefits. Furthermore, the Arbitrator found that the second surgery was performed by a doctor outside the scope of the two-doctor rule, and therefore respondent was entitled to a credit for medical payments made for that procedure.

4. Mary Krzeckowski v. B-Way (04 WC 9959)

Petitioner alleged sustaining two injuries while working for the same insured during periods of time covered by separate insurance companies. We represented the second insurance company and argued that no new injury took place. Co-respondent argued that a new injury did take place, and that the second injury caused petitioner to become totally disabled. The Arbitrator found that no new injury took place and that petitioner’s inability to return to work in her form employment was due to the initial injury.

5. Scott Krause v. Norwest Electric (03 WC 54058)

Petitioner alleged a work injury as a result of falling while re-entering the facility through the loading dock instead of the standard walkway entrance. Petitioner went on a cigarette break and while returning to work, he decided to climb the loading dock instead of using the standard door entrance. The Arbitrator found that this injury did not "arise out of his employment." The Arbitrator went on to say that the employer received no benefit from petitioner's decision to enter through the loading dock. Petitioner's decision to do so was a personal choice and the petitioner placed himself in a position of greater risk, not the employer.

6. Danny Oliver v. Lyon Metal (00 WC 22437)

Petitioner alleged he was permanently and totally disabled from returning to work as a result of a back injury. Petitioner requested temporary total disability benefits for a four-year period and continued benefits under Section 8(f) for the remainder of his disability. The arbitrator found that petitioner suffered an injury based on loss of use of a man as a whole and awarded only 26 weeks of temporary total disability.