Profile Page

Dan Wellner
Hennessy & Roach
Chicago
partner
  • BA in History, Political Science – University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1994
  • Juris Doctor – 1997 – Chicago Kent College of Law
  • Admitted to practice in Illinois, 1997
  • Admitted to practice in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 1998

Professional Affiliations:

  • Workers Compensation Lawyers’ Association

Practice Areas:

  • Defense of Workers’ Compensation Matters

Significant Arbitration Decisions

1. Jheri Hooks v. J.C. Penney (96 WC 10151, 96 WC 10152 & 96 WC 10153 )

Petitioner alleged that she had three separate slip and fall injuries. Petitioner’s testimony that she injured her upper back, left leg and left shoulder was inconsistent with the only contemporaneous treatment records in evidence. She reported another source of injury for her back pain in the medical records. The medical records of the later accident showed that Petitioner did not seek treatment or otherwise mention her falls to a medical provider until seven months after the date of the fall. The Arbitrator found that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that Petitioner had accidents arising out of and in the scope of her employment.

2. Julie Ozyuk v. Gallagher Bassett (02 WC 48607)

The Petitioner had a compensable left shoulder injury. She alleged that while in therapy for the left shoulder, she injured her right shoulder and neck. The medical records were devoid of any right shoulder and neck complaints until December 2003, three months after Petitioner alleged the injury in therapy. Petitioner could not show that the physical therapist did not purposely did not document Petitioner’s complaints. The Arbitrator denied medical treatment and temporary total disability related to the right shoulder and neck. The Commission affirmed these findings.

3. Earl Rose v. Heidbreder – Peters Company (03 WC 5658 – 06 IWCC 462)

This claim involved an alleged injury on May 8, 2003. Petitioner had a previous claim for a date of injury of September 2001. Petitioner’s allegation was that on May 8, 2003 he injured his back from a repetitive trauma. However, there was no supporting testimony or documentary evidence of any work injury after September 2001. Petitioner could only admit that he notified Respondent of his increased symptoms in May 2003, but he failed to notify them of the new work injury. While Petitioner had an appointment with his doctor in May 2003, the evidence showed that Petitioner had originally scheduled this appointment in December 2002, while he was laid off from his employment. The Arbitrator found that Petitioner did not have an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and denied any compensation under the May 2003 injury. This Decision was affirmed by the Commission.

4. Robert DeAngelo v. Aramark Management Services (04 WC 5850 – 08 IWCC 367)

Petitioner alleged that neck and back surgeries were related to an injury caused by repetitive trauma. The Arbitrator found that there was no compensable accident. Petitioner did not seek medical treatment for several months after his he allegedly started feeling pain. When he received treatment he did not provide a history of a work injury. Moreover, the Arbitrator adopted the opinions of Respondent’s examining physician that Petitioner’s cervical and lumbar conditions were pre-existing conditions which were not caused nor aggravated by Petitioner’s employment with Respondent. The Commission affirmed the Arbitrator’s Decision.

5. Tomasa Salgado v. Koch Foods (10 WC 2376 – 11 IWCC 1151)

Petitioner had a compensable injury to her left wrist which occurred on June 29, 2009. She then claimed that on July 1, 2009 she injured her shoulder and knee from light-duty work which was assigned after the left wrist injury. The July 1, 2009 matter was denied. The evidence showed that there was no medical documentation of an injury to the shoulder or the knee until the end of October 2009. This reporting of a knee and shoulder injury coincided with Petitioner seeking new treatment at another provider. Witness testimony from Respondent indicated no awareness of injuries to other body parts after the initial wrist injury. Petitioner could also not credibly testify when she first felt pain in her knee and shoulder. The Arbitrator found Petitioner did not have an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment. The Commission affirmed his findings.

No Videos At The Moment