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

                                                                                                                                                                                                       Print
Thomas C. Flaherty
tflaherty@hennessyroach.com

• Bachelor of Science - University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1994
• Juris Doctor- Valparaiso University School of Law, Valparaiso Indiana, 1999
• Admitted to practice in Illinois in 1999

Professional Affiliations

Chicago Bar Association

Practice Areas

Defense of Workers' Compensation

Significant Arbitration Decisions

1. Steven Gascoinge v. Hcc, Inc.

Petitioner alleged that he sustained an accident at work while inspecting a tractor. He testified that, while checking the tractor's operations, the hydraulics stuck causing the tractor to “slam” down. Petitioner alleged he sustained a disc herniation at L5-S1. Respondent introduced a witnessed who testified Petitioner told her a few days before his accident that he had fallen off his roof. Additionally, Respondent introduced Petitioner’s emergency room records which stated that Petitioner’s back pain “started suddenly after coughing.” The Arbitrator found Petitioner’s testimony not credible and denied compensation. The Industrial Commission affirmed the decision on review.

2. Kandy Auer v. Praireland Food Co.

Petitioner, a manager at a Denny’s Restaurant, alleged sustaining a disc herniation after a fall at work on July 5, 1996. During Arbitration, Petitioner testified that she did not suffer any previous back conditions. Respondent impeached Petitioner by introducing evidence establishing Petitioner sought medical treatment for her back condition five months previously. Respondent also introduced into evidence the Form 45, which was filled out and singed by Petitioner on the date of accident. On the Form 45, Petitioner listed the nature of injury as a disc herniation at L5-S1. On cross-examination, Petitioner testified that she filled the form 45 out following her accident on July 15, 1996. Respondent then established by way of Petitioner’s medical records that Petitioner back- dated the form 45 as she did not receive the diagnosis of a disc herniation at L5-S1 until July 29, 1996. The Arbitrator denied compensation and the Industrial Commission affirmed the decision on review.

3. April Garcia v. Illinois Bottle Manufacturing

Petitioner alleged that she slipped on a bottle top and twisted her right knee while at work on April 9, 2002. At hearing, she testified that she immediately reported her accident and injury to her supervisor. She also testified to going to her doctor with complaints of knee pain following the accident. Respondent produced Petitioner’s supervisor to impeach Petitioner’s testimony. Petitioner’s supervisor testified that Petitioner never reported her accident and that he only became aware of the injury a month prior to hearing. He also testified to Respondent’s procedures for reporting work place accidents. In addition to Petitioner’s supervisor, Respondent also relied on the history as to the onset of Petitioner’s right knee pain in her treating records. Petitioner’s treating records were absent a history of accident and indicated that Petitioner had right knee pain for months. The Arbitrator found the testimony of Respondent’s supervisor and history in the medical records more reliable than Petitioner’s testimony and denied compensation.

4. Deborah Weiss-Borgg v. Culligan, 02 WC 3046

Petitioner alleged that, as a result of lifting and moving a water cooler at work on September 9, 1997, she developed pudendal nerve entrapment. In support of this allegation, she relied on the opinions of an expert in the field of pudendal nerve entrapment. On direct examination, the expert testified that the water cooler moving incident and other repetitive micro-trauma caused an aggravation of pre-existing condition, and, that as a result of that aggravation, Petitioner was disabled and in need of additional medical treatment. On cross examination, Respondent established with the expert, by way of Petitioner’s treatment records, that Petitioner sought no treatment for symptoms associated with pudendal nerve entrapment after December of 1997. The records showed that, not until November of 1999, did Petitioner seek treatment for symptoms associated with pudendal nerve entrapment. In conjunction with treatment for pudendal nerve entrapment, the treatment records indicated Petitioner was hospitalized for an upper respiratory infection and hacking cough. After her hospitalization for the upper respiratory infection, Petitioner began to complain of constant and worsening symptoms associated with pudendal nerve entrapment. Petitioner’s expert conceded on cross-examination that coughing associated with an upper respiratory infection could aggravate a pre-existing pudendal nerve entrapment. He also conceded that he did not know when Petitioner’s “process started.” The Arbitrator found that the accident of September 9, 1997 caused only a temporary aggravation of a pre-existing condition and that Petitioner’s ongoing disability ability was not related to the work accident.

5. Caroline Zazra v. Urban Outfitters, 05 WC 4609

Petitioner alleged breaking her left foot while walking across Respondent’s storeroom floor. Evidence at trial showed that the storeroom floor was designed to give a rustic feel and that the floor boards were warped. Petitioner testified that she caught her left foot on a floor board and feeling a “pop” in her foot. Through the testimony of Petitioner’s Supervisor, Respondent showed that, at the time of the alleged accident, Petitioner was assigned to a cash register and there was no reason for her to walk the storeroom. Additionally, company policy required that the employees assigned to registers are to remain at the register. The supervisor also testified that Petitioner reported rolling her foot in the parking lot after work. Respondent also relied on Petitioner’s treatment records, which showed she had numerous breaks to both of her feet in the past. Petitioner testified that, prior to the accident, she never had broken her left foot. The Arbitrator denied compensation, finding that testimony of Respondent’s supervisor’s testimony and the histories in the medical records more credible than the testimony of Petitioner on the issue of accident.

6. Donald Maiberger v. River Oaks Lincoln Mercury, 01 WC 40204

This claim involved a dispute between two carriers. On August 2, 2000, Petitioner lifted a tire at work and felt an immediate onset of low back pain. He subsequently received a diagnosis of a herniated disc at L4-L5. Petitioner underwent conservative treatment for this condition and returned to work full duty in May of 2001. In March of 2003, Petitioner slipped on ice while parking a customer’s vehicle and re-aggravated his pre-existing L4-L5 disc and ultimately underwent lumbar disc surgery. The subsequent carrier for Respondent argued that the disc and need for surgery related to the August 2, 2000 accident. The Arbitrator/Commission found that Petitioner’s ongoing disability and need for surgery related to the second accident as testimony and medical evidence showed Petitioner reached MMI in May of 2001 following the August 2, 2000 accident and returned to work full duty without complaint until the accident of March 2003.

7. Lori Mikols v. St. Francis Hospital, 04 WC 15716

Petitioner alleged an injury to her left wrist and left shoulder on May 1, 2003 after a combative patient twisted her left upper extremity. Respondent accepted the left wrist injury as compensable but denied the left shoulder claim. At trial, Respondent relied on Petitioner’s treatment records that showed Petitioner made no complaints of left shoulder pain at the time initial treatment and that not until October of 2004 did she begin seeking treatment for the left shoulder. Respondent also relied on Petitioner’s allegations in the Application for Adjustment of Claim. Petitioner filed an Application for Adjustment of Claim in March of 2004 alleging only an injury to the left wrist. Lastly, Respondent produced an expert who opined that a causal relationship did not exist between the alleged work injury of May 1, 2003 and Petitioner’s left shoulder condition. The Arbitrator found that Petitioner failed establish a casual connection between her left shoulder condition and work accident of May 1, 2003.