Profile Page

David Doellman
Hennessy & Roach
St. Louis

University of Missouri – Columbia School of Law, Columbia, Missouri

  • Juris Doctor, Magna Cum Laude: May, 2009
  • Order of the Coif
  • GPA: 92.15 Rank: 4/150 (top 5%)

Truman State University, Kirksville, Missouri

  • B.S., Political Science, Magna Cum Laude: May 2006
  • Minors: Psychology, Justice Systems
  • GPA: 3.78
  • Vice President of Academic Affairs’ List (GPA of 3.5 – 3.99) – 5 semesters
  • Presidents List (GPA of 4.0) – 2 semester

Professional Affiliations:

  • American Bar Association
  • Missouri Bar Association
  • Labor and Employment Law Committee Member
  • Tort Law Committee Member
  • The Illinois State Bar Association
  • The Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis

Practice Areas:

  • Defense of Workers’ Compensation and General Liability claims in Illinois and Missouri



  1. Robert Tate v. Manpower (12 WC 02427)

Petitioner alleged bilateral hernias as a result of a work injury from April 2012.  The left side was accepted, but the right was disputed after petitioner’s treating doctor flipped opinions on causation.  We obtained a records review which indicated the right side was not work related based on the delayed reporting of symptoms and petitioner’s expert’s own initial opinion.  The Arbitrator denied all benefits on the right side and agreed with our expert.  She also relied heavily on the fact that petitioner’s own expert did not provide a strong causation opinion and actually had hand-written notes on Respondent’s expert report suggesting that he agreed with those opinions.


  1. Sheila Gregory-Finley v. World Wide Technology (13 WC 05702)

Petitioner alleged a back injury with surgery recommended after being allegedly struck by a forklift in a warehouse.  Petitioner told her supervisors and all treating physicians that she fell to the ground and felt immediate pain in her back.  Petitioner’s expert recommended a spinal fusion due to the aggravation of an underlying asymptomatic condition.  Respondent’s expert only indicated a strain/sprain related to the work injury.  At trial, petitioner testified in detail about her fall to the floor, but surveillance footage of the actual accident was then revealed showing petitioner not falling to the floor and barely being bumped by the forklift.  The Arbitrator relied heavily on the footage and felt that this severely hurt Petitioner’s credibility on all issues and helped support Respondent’s causation expert.  All future benefits were denied.


  1. Jennifer Brimm v. Addus Healthcare (12 WC 39072; 12 WC 40807)

Petitioner suffered two neck and shoulder injuries while working for Respondent in 2011 and 2012.  She received only conservative care until she stopped working for Respondent and started a new job.  After the new job started and a period of five or six months passed, Petitioner began treating again for her injuries and at this time required diagnostic testing, orthopedic referrals, and eventual surgical recommendations.  Petitioner testified that her new job involved a lot more stretching and reaching, and was more intense than her job for Respondent.  Based on the medical opinions suggesting Petitioner was at MMI for her work injuries for Respondent around the time she changed jobs, and because Petitioner’s symptoms and need for treatment intensified after her new job began, the Arbitrator found no causal connection between Petitioner’s need for additional medical treatment and the work injuries with Respondent.  Instead, the Arbitrator awarded all additional medical care for the shoulder and neck to Petitioner through her second employer.

Missouri, Workers' Compensation -T.H. vs. Sonic Drive In of High Ridge