Profile Page

Tammy Paquette
Hennessy & Roach
Chicago
associate

Education:

  • DePaul College of Law, J.D., June 2001
  • Loyola University, B.A., June 1998
  • Admitted to the Illinois bar in 2003

Professional Affiliations:

  • Illinois State Bar Association

Significant Commission/Arbitration Decisions:

  • Laura DuPont-Taylor v. Ford: (07 WC 050272)

Petitioner claimed repetitive trauma injuries to her bilateral upper extremities due to her work on the production line for less than one month.  Investigation revealed that Petitioner had prior bilateral hand/wrist complaints and a recommendation for carpal tunnel surgery. The case was heard by Arbitrator Black who found Petitioner did not prove a compensable accident, was not credible and denied all claims for compensation. Petitioner did  file a review to the Commission and they affirmed.  The case was then taken to the Circuit Court where the decision was confirmed.

  • Marilyn Herrold v. AMR-American Airlines: (98 WC 036476)

Petitioner alleged she developed RSD/CRPS from a crush injury to her right foot.  Respondent obtained an IME who opined Petitioner had reached MMI less than a year after the accident and was not suffering from RSD.  Petitioner alleged that she was permanently and totally disabled and claimed in excess of $300,000 in outstanding medical.  The case was heard by Arbitrator Peterson who awarded 25% of the foot and denied all medical and TTD.  Petitioner filed a review, pro-se, to the Commission, which was dismissed on our motion.

  • Patrick Amore v. AMR-American Airlines: (04 WC 041060)

Petitioner sustained a compensable accident when he slipped while carrying a bucket.  Petitioner’s complaints continued to increase to the point he alleged he could do nothing. Respondent obtained an IME who opined Petitioner needed injections and possibly surgery to the low back.  In the interim, surveillance was obtained which showed Petitioner riding his motorcycle for extended periods of time, pushing a lawn mower and lifting/bending.  The IME doctor then opined Petitioner had sustained a low back strain and was at MMI.  This case was heard by Arbitrator Hagan who found that while Petitioner had sustained a compensable accident, he failed to establish his complaints were related to the work accident.  Moreover, she found Petitioner was not credible based on the surveillance and denied benefits; Petitioner did not file a review to the Commission.

  • Randall Hopper v. Phoenix Technical: (05 WC 020726)

Petitioner sustained a compensable accident while he was working as an electrician and injured his left hand.  Petitioner underwent an extended period of treatment but continued to complain of pain, tremors and temperature sensitivity.  Respondent obtained an IME who found Petitioner was at MMI, however, Petitioner’s treating physician opined he could not go back to work as an electrician.  TTD payments were converted to PPD advances.  The case was heard by Arbitrator Galicia.  Petitioner argued that he should be awarded a wage differential as he could not go back to work as an electrician and in fact moved to Nevada because he could no longer be in the cold.  The arbitrator found Respondent’s IME credible and awarded Petitioner 15% loss of use of the left hand.  In addition, he found Respondent was entitled to a credit for the PPD advances made.  The case was closed out on settlement contracts for $5,000, approximately the value of the arbitrator’s award.

  • Johnny Baggett v II in One Contractors: (12 WC43173)

Petitioner was a union cement mason who sustained a back injury for which he had permanent restrictions.  Respondent obtained an IME who found Petitioner was magnifying his symptoms and could return to work full duty.  Based on this IME benefits were terminated.  Petitioner was alleging entitlement to wage differential benefits.  When the case was tried, Respondent not only argued Petitioner was full duty, based on the IME, but also argued in the alternative that even if Petitioner had restrictions, he was not entitled to wage differential benefits as he admitted to smoking marijuana and that he knew this was illegal and that he could not pass a pre-employment drug screen and secure employment.  Based on this, Respondent took the position that Petitioner’s actions sabotaged his chances of gaining employment elsewhere and he was, therefore, not entitled to a wage differential.  The case was tried before Arbitrator Black.  Petitioner was seeking penalties and wage differential benefits in excess of $550,000.  The Arbitrator found Petitioner did not present credible evidence to establish entitlement to wage differential benefits and awarded 35% man as a whole.

No Videos At The Moment