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

James P. Roach
jroach@hennessyroach.com

• Bachelor of Arts - History 1987, University of Illinois
• Juris Doctor 1990, University of Illinois
• Admitted to Practice in Illinois and Federal Court 1990

Professional Affiliations

Member of The Chicago Bar Association, The Illinois State Bar Association, The Workers' Compensation Lawyers Association, The Workers' Compensation Claims Association and The Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel
Vice-Chair of the Chicago Bar Foundation Investing in Justice Campaign

Practice Areas

Defense of Workers' Compensation cases

Social Affiliations

Director - Western Golf Association; Member of Executive Committee - Western golf Association; President of Chick Evans Scholar Alumni Association; Host Committee member – St. Laurence High School Capital Campaign.

Expert Testimony

Retained as defense expert in legal malpractice case of Curtis Brady v. Richard Doyle, et al. (99 L 049).

Special Recognition

Chicago Daily Law Bulletin 40 Attorneys Under 40 to Watch in Illinois Award (2003); Chicago Magazine - Illinois Super Lawyers (2005)

Significant Arbitration/Commission Decisions

1. Dorothy Jackson v. Brach & Brock Confections (95 WC 24428)

The petitioner sought benefits claiming that the repetitive nature of her work in the maintenance department aggravated her degenerative hip condition to the point where she could never work again. The arbitrator, however, held that the petitioner had not suffered an injury which arose out of and in the course of the petitioner's employment and awarded the petitioner no benefits. The arbitrator's decision was primarily based on the successful cross examination of the petitioner's treating physician, who had opined that the petitioner's condition was aggravated by her work.

2. Richard Mercado v. Globe Fasteners (94 WC 16760)

The petitioner sought benefits for a low back herniated disc which he testified occurred when he lifted a heavy box at work. During the petitioner's cross examination, several inconsistencies in his accident description compelled the arbitrator to hold that he had not suffered an injury which arose out of or in the course of his employment.

3. Viola McLaughlin v. McGill Plastics (93 WC 23955)

The petitioner sought permanent and total disability benefits as a result of a herniated disc at C3-C4 and permanent sedentary work restrictions outlined for her by her treating and examining physicians. At the time of her accident, the petitioner was 59 years old and her regular job required frequent heavy lifting. The petitioner's claim for permanent and total disability was defeated as a result of a modified duty position offered by the respondent to the petitioner which she refused to accept. The arbitrator's decision reflected that he was persuaded by the evidence offered by respondent which consisted of the actual pieces the petitioner would have been required to work with had she accepted the modified position.

4. Del Davis v. Jewel Food Stores, (91 WC 20487)

The petitioner was beaten up while collecting carts in the employer's parking lot. The arbitrator found that the petitioner had not suffered an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment because there was no credible evidence presented that the attack (1) had anything to do with the petitioner's employment or (2) occurred in a dangerous area.

5. Guadalupe Ochoa v. Brach & Brock Confections (91 WC 59915)

The petitioner argued that she was permanently and totally disabled because (1) she did heavy work (2) had permanent sedentary work restrictions and (3) spoke little English. Therefore, the petitioner claimed she was entitled to an award of permanent disability under the "odd lot" theory. The arbitrator held that the petitioner was not permanently and totally disabled because it was credibly established at hearing that the petitioner made no legitimate effort to find work within her restrictions.

6. Daniel Grahm v. Ace Hardware (96 WC 1554)

The petitioner claimed he broke his foot when he tripped over clutter in the aisle of a warehouse where he was working. A co-worker testified at the hearing that the aisle was clean and that the petitioner fell because he broke into a run and attempted to hurdle a pallet full of boxes. The arbitrator found that the petitioner's injury was not compensable under the "horseplay" defense.

7. Maria Valadez v. Brach & Brock Confections (95 WC 09115)

The petitioner was seeking TTD benefits after a general layoff when the petitioner still had work restrictions. The arbitrator declined to award the petitioner TTD because the petitioner's treating physician admitted during cross examination at his evidence deposition that the petitioner had reached maximum medical improvement, thereby eliminating her right to TTD benefits.

8. Christine Stelmach v. ABN AMBRO (98 WC 65523)

The petitioner was asserting that her involvement in a bank robbery constituted a "sudden, severe, emotional" trauma sufficient enough to fit into the Pathfinder exception to the rule in Illinois that stress without an underlying physical injury (i.e., mental-mental claims) are not compensable. The Arbitrator held that the petitioner did not carry her burden of proof on that issue at hearing.

9. Sara Sandberg v. Ace Hardware Retail Support Center (98 WC 49816)

The petitioner filled orders with the use of a push cart on a cement surface in a warehouse. Pursuant to her job duties, she walked 15-20 miles per shift. The petitioner developed plantar fascitia which her treating orthopedic surgeon claimed was related to her work. The arbitrator held that the petitioner did not prove that she suffered a compensable accident since she did not prove that the act of walking and pushing the cart exposed her to any greater danger than the general public.

10. Penny Furtado v. J& L Oil (99 WC 37247)

The petitioner was scheduled to undergo a lumbar laminectomy. The petitioner alleged she injured her lumbar spine in an unwitnessed accident lifting cases of pop while working. At trial, two co-workers testified that the petitioner injured herself falling down the stairs at home. The arbitrator held that no injury occurred which arose out of or in the course of petitioner's employment.

11. Vicki Anderson v. Ace Hardware Retail Supply Center (96 WC 59315)

The petitioner alleged that excessive walking caused severe foot problems. The petitioner's treating physician opined that her problems were related to her work. The arbitrator held that the act of walking was not a compensable activity under the Act.

12. Timothy Washington v. Eagle Food Center, Inc. (94 WC 06686)

The petitioner alleged that his psychological condition of depression was related to a physical altercation with his supervisor at work. The arbitrator found that the petitioner's injuries did not arise out of his employment.

13. John Cataudella v. City of Chicago. (96 WC 19213)

The petitioner had a herniated disc at L4-l5. The petitioner refused to undergo surgery to relieve his symptoms. The petitioner’s treating physician opined that the petitioner could never work in any capacity. Therefore, petitioner attempted to prove up permanent and total disability. Based on a Supreme Court case cited in respondent’s proposed decision, the arbitrator rejected petitioner’s argument that he was permanently and totally disabled.

14. Curtis Hudson v. City of Chicago (93 WC 39548)

The petitioner, a paramedic for the City of Chicago, argued that he was not barred by Section 1(b)(1) of the Act or by the Pension Code from recovering working compensation benefits. At arbitration, before the Commission and before the Circuit Court of Cook County, it was held that the petitioner was barred from recovery under the Act.

15. Richard Binion v. Delgado Erection (95 WC 38745)

The petitioner filed a §19(b) petition alleging that his torn rotator cuff in his left shoulder, as diagnosed in July of 1996 was causally related to his work accident on March 29, 1995. On March 29, 1995, the petitioner was performing his job duties as a structural ironworker when a 400 pound piece of steel fell from a crane and glanced off petitioner’s left shoulder. The issue during the §19(b) hearing came down to a disagreement between several treating and consulting physicians regarding whether the petitioner’s original left shoulder MRI on April 10, 1995 revealed the torn rotator cuff. Based on video surveillance of the petitioner using his left arm above his head on February 27, 1996, the arbitrator held that the petitioner’s left shoulder torn rotator cuff was not related to his March 29, 1995 accident.

16. Mary Woodard v. Clinton Electronics (97 WC 43399)

The petitioner worked as a utility trainer for the respondent for eleven years. On November 13, 1996 the petitioner was involved in a non-work-related car accident. Shortly after the accident, the petitioner developed carpal tunnel syndrome. The petitioner’s treating surgeon opined that the petitioner’s carpal tunnel syndrome was related to her work activities, not her car accident. The employer’s consulting physician opined that the carpal tunnel surgery was “traumatically induced” by petitioner’s car accident. The arbitrator held that the petitioner’s carpal tunnel syndrome was related to her car accident and not her work activities.

17. Omah Mercuri v. Hunt and Screw Manufacturing (98 WC 541 and 99 WC 54654)

The petitioner suffered a soft tissue shoulder injury followed several weeks later by a stroke. The petitioner had not worked since 1997 and was alleging that she was permanently and totally disabled as a result of a work-related stroke. At arbitration, the arbitrator found that the petitioner’s work activities had no relation to her stroke and awarded the petitioner permanency on the basis of a soft tissue shoulder injury. This decision was affirmed by the Industrial Commission, the Circuit Court and the Appellate Court.

18. Gary Stover v. Printers Express(01 WC 4329)

The petitioner suffered a compensable injury on December 18, 2000 resulting in a herniated disc at L4-L5, which was the responsibility of the referring insurer. On June 17, 2002, the petitioner claimed a recurrence of low back pain. By that date, the employer had a new insurer. In a §8(a) hearing regarding which injury caused the need for the petitioner’s prescribed surgery, the Arbitrator held that all responsibility for the petitioner’s low back condition after June 17, 2002 was wholly related to petitioner’s June 17, 2002 accident.

19. Jose Agudelo v. Hirsh (98 WC 63764)

The petitioner was struck by a forklift and thrown several feet. He eventually underwent low back surgery for a L5-S1 herniated disc and a chondral fracture of his knee. To defend against the employer’s liability for the back surgery, I stressed that while the petitioner immediately began to complain of low back pain, he did not make radicular complaints until several months after the accident. To defend against the employer’s liability for petitioner’s knee surgery, I presented an argument through the employer’s IME physician that the petitioner’s knee condition was more likely related to a congenital difference in the length of his legs as opposed to the accident. The demand was for permanent and total disability. The Arbitrator found in favor of the employer on both causal connection issues and awarded the petitioner $3,450.00.

20. Kastra Jarmon v. Caribou Coffee, (03 WC 23928)

The petitioner was struck in the face with a heavy door to an ice cooler. The petitioner claimed total blindness in one eye and post traumatic stress syndrome. In regard to petitioner’s eye, four treating physicians opined that the petitioner lost complete sight in her eye as a result of her work accident. The employer’s IME physician, however, was the only physician that tested to determine the legitimacy of the petitioner’s complaints. The IME physician opined that the petitioner was significantly exaggerating her symptoms. I stressed to the Arbitrator that the IME physician’s opinion on the issue of the legitimacy of petitioner’s symptoms was unrebutted. The Arbitrator agreed and denied benefits to the petitioner for her eye injury.

In regard to petitioner’s post traumatic stress syndrome, two of the petitioner’s treating physicians opined that the petitioner was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder and that it was related to her work accident. Because of inconsistencies in the petitioner’s conduct after the accident and the strength of a Section 12 exam finding no causal connection, the Arbitrator also awarded the petitioner no benefits for her post traumatic stress disorder.

21. Charles Welsh v. Yellow Freight (03 WC 51342)

The petitioner was driving a truck for the employer when a drunk driver struck a car in the oncoming left turn lane in the rear and forced the car into the path of the truck the petitioner was driving. The accident involved a fatality in the car the petitioner’s truck struck. The petitioner struck his left knee on the inside of the truck cab during the accident, reported the accident immediately and had two visits to the company clinic. The petitioner was diagnosed with a sprain/strain injury. There was a nine month gap in medical treatment. When the petitioner began to treat again, he reported that his knee bothered him and became progressively worse during the nine month gap in treatment. On the basis of the gap in treatment, the Arbitrator found no causal connection between the petitioner’s injury and his knee condition after the nine month gap.

22. Thomas Potenzo v. Jewel (97 WC 28230)

The petitioner was unloading his truck in a dock behind his employer’s store. The petitioner was attacked and suffered numerous severe injuries. All the petitioner could testify to at hearing about the assault was that his foot was grabbed and he slipped striking his head and he lost consciousness. The case was defended as not compensable because the petitioner could not prove the assault arose out of his employment since there was no evidence as to why he was attacked and the petitioner failed to establish that the employer’s store was in a dangerous area. The Arbitrator agreed and awarded the petitioner no benefits.

23. Jerome Scott v. Standard Parking (00 WC 55406)

The petitioner was employed by the employer as a parking lot attendant at Midway Airport. According to the petitioner, he was driving from lot to lot in his own car changing tickets at the entrance to each lot and counting open spaces when he lost control of his car and was involved in a very serious accident. The employer denied that the petitioner’s job duties included any of the tasks he was allegedly performing at the time of the accident. The employer also denied the petitioner was ever authorized to be in the lot he was in at the time of his injury. On cross examination, the petitioner was impeached several times. The Arbitrator found petitioner’s testimony was not credible and denied benefits.

24. Claudio Gallegos v. Flexi-Van (01 WC 64664, 03 WC 09090 and 03 WC 09091)

The petitioner had three separate accidents and was seeking $26,532.00 in medical, TTD and permanency at hearing. The Arbitrator awarded only permanent impairment of $9,864.49 and found in favor of respondent on the issues of disputed medical and TTD.

JURY TRIALS

Surestaff v. Azteca Foods (04 L 6746) Represented Azteca Foods. Case tried before jury from June 27 through June 29, 2006. Surestaff was seeking reimbursement for $590,000.00 it paid out in workers' compensation benefits under the theory that it was not the primarily responsible party as the loaning employer. Azteca argued that Surestaff was responsible. Jury found for Azteca.

Presentations

1994

June 29, 1994 Rules Governing Practice Before the Illinois Industrial Commission and their impact on claims handling - Presented to Kemper Insurance claim staff

December 8, 1994 Basic Aspects of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act - Presented to Universal Underwriters claim staff

December 15, 1994 Basic Defense Strategies and Defense Counsel's Role in Resolving Claims - Presented to Interlake Corporation supervisor at training seminar

1995

February 21, 1995 Strategies for Resolution of Workers' Compensation Claims - Presented to Alexsis claims staff

August 3, 1995 Illinois Worker's Compensation Case Law Changes - Presented to Alexsis claim staff

December 5, 1995 Subrogation and the Worker's Compensation Lien - Presented to Marriott claims staff

1996

March 5, 1996 Strategies for Effective Use of Defense Counsel - Presented to Illinois Claims Manager's Association

August 7, 1996 Compensability Issues and Perfecting a Circuit Court Review - Presented to Kemper claims staff

August 28, 1996 The Compensability of Workers' Compensation Claims - Training seminar for disability adjustors working on Ameritech claims

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

February 3, 1997 Recognition of Workers' Compensation Forms - Presented to Sedgwick claims staff

March 11, 1997 The Recorded Statement - Discussion and mock trial - Presented to Wausau claims staff

April 24, 1997 Structure of Industrial Commission and Lawyers Role in Defending Claim - Presented to International Paper's National symposium on workers' compensation

May 21, 1997 The Role of Defense and Basic Strategies in Defending Workers' Compensation Claim -Presented at National Risk Management conference for Litton Industries International

June 17, 1997 Basic Aspects of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act and Case Law Update - Presented to CNA Insurance staff and CNA clients

December 9, 1997 Structure of Industrial Commission and General Information about its Operation - Presented to Illinois Claims Managers Association

1998

January 7, 1998 Kotecki and its Progeny; Defending Employers in Third Party Litigation: Presented to Kemper claims staff

February 3, 1998 Kotecki and its Progeny; Defending Employers in Third Party Litigation: Presented to Alexsis claims staff

February 18, 1998 Kotecki and its Progeny; Defending Employers in Third Party Litigation: Presented to Westfield Insurance claims staff

May 11, 1998 Kotecki and its Progeny; Defending Employers in Third Party Litigation: Presented to Wausau claims staff

August 28, 1998 The Compensability of Recreational Activity Under §11 of the Act: Presented to Dominick's claims staff.

September 1, 1998 Kotecki and its Progeny: Defending Employers in Third Party Litigation: Presented to United Fire & Casualty claims staff in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

1999

January 22, 1999 The Impact of the McMahan Decision on Claims Involving Disputed Medical Issues: Presented to Illinois Compensation Trust claims staff.

February 22, 1999 Compensability of Stress Claims in Illinois and Basic Strategies for Taking Effective Recorded Statements - Presented to Chubb Insurance claims staff.

March 16, 1999 The Second Injury Fund and Defense Counsel's Role in Settlement: Presented to warehouse managers at National Workers' Compensation Training Seminar for Union Tank Car.

May 5, 1999 Fraud and Its Use in the Defense of Workers' Compensation Claims: Presented to warehouse supervisors and managers at Ace Hardware's warehouse facility in Princeton, Illinois.

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.

December 5&6, 2000 Proper Investigation Techniques: Presented to over 100 front line supervisors for Yellow Freight Systems.

2001

March 16, 2001 A Defense Attorney’s Perspective on Cost Cutting in the Claims Process: Presented to risk managers and claim professionals.

March 24, 2001 Proper Investigation Techniques: Presented to shift supervisors at Nestle.

September 26, 2001 Relationship Between OSHA and Workers’ Compensation: Presented to various safety managers in coordination with OSHA expert.

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.

May 16, 2002 Accident Investigation: Presented to numerous human resource professionals as part of joint workers' compensation, labor and employment and immigration seminar.

October 17, 2002 Mock Trial: Presented to over 100 Risk Managers and Captive Program Administrators.

2004

March 26, 2004 Mock Trial: Presented to 25 adjusters in the St. Louis area.

April 4, 2004 Seminar: Medicare Set Aside: Served on panel to discuss Medicare set aside issue in detail.

May 20, 2004 Effective Use of Independent Medical Exams: Presented to workers' compensation supervisors from a large international client.

June 30, 2004 Sisbro and the Stats of Pre-Existing Condition Defenses in Illinois: Presented to 14 adjusters at large national third party administer.

October 26, 2004 Sisbro and the Stats of Pre-Existing Condition Defenses in Illinois: Presented to over 30 adjusters and supervisors at large mutual third party administrator.

November 30, 2004 Sisbro and the Stats of Pre-Existing Condition Defenses in Illinois: Presented to claims analysts and producers at large insurance broker/agent.

2006

January 20, 2006 Changes to the Illinois Act and Their Effect: Delivered to large self insured and adjusters for National T.P.A. assigned to self insured's clients.

January 24, 2006 Changes to the Illinois Act and Their Effect: Delivered to diverse audience of 125 risk managers and claims professionals.

April 5, 2006 Changes to the Illinois Act and Their Effect: Delivered to claims adjusters at ESIS.

June 23, 2006 Mock Trial: Presented to 70 risk managers and adjusters from around the country.

November 14, 2006 Accident Investigation: Presented to 110 State Farm adjusters.