Profile Page

Rick Day
Hennessy & Roach
St. Louis
  • Bachelor of Science – Political Science 1984, Quincy University
  • Juris Doctor 1988, Nova University Shepard Broad Law Center
  • Admitted to Practice in Florida 1988, Missouri 1991 and Illinois 1997

Professional Affiliations:

  • Missouri Bar Association
  • Illinois Bar Association
  • Florida Bar Association

Practice Areas:

  • Defense of Workers’ Compensation and General Liability matters

Social Affiliations:

  • Catholic Charities-Volunteer

Significant Arbitration Decisions

1. John Hill v. Indiana Erectors

The petitioner injured his low back on a construction site. He initially underwent conservative treatment, but eventually received a surgical recommendation. The arbitrator denied additional medical care due to the IME physician’s opinion petitioner’s condition was related to an ongoing degenerative condition and that surveillance tapes revealed petitioner was more active than he testified.

2. Jeff Wabel v. Kroger

The petitioner claimed to have injured his low back while lifting boxes of meat. He claims to have immediately reported the injury, but witness testimony refuted petitioner’s testimony. Petitioner also denied any prior low back complaints, but the medical records substantiated petitioner’s prior complaints. The arbitrator denied petitioner’s claim for benefits citing petitioner’s lack of credibility regarding the reporting of his injury and the evidence establishing petitioner’s prior low back complaints.

3. Jessie Callicott v. Ryerson Tull

Petitioner claimed to have aggravated a pre-existing degenerative hip condition as a result of his work activities as a crane operator. Petitioner underwent a total hip replacement and eventually was awarded Social Security Disability benefits. After the Arbitrator entered an Award in favor of the petitioner, the case was appealed to the Illinois Industrial Commission who overturned the Award. The Commission held the petitioner’s hip condition was not medically causally related to his work activities at Ryerson. The Commissioner’s decision has been affirmed on appeal.

4. Dorothy Robinson v. Murphysboro School District

Petitioner worked as a school monitor for Muphysboro School District. She sustained a significant injury to her shoulder when she slipped and fell while dropping off a child in the kindergarten classroom. The Arbitrator found petitioner’s accident did not arise out of her employment since the kindergarten classroom was not affiliated with Muphysboro School District and her job duties did not require her to drop off students in the kindergarten class.

5. William Gill v. Walgreens

Petitioner claimed to have sustained an injury to his hand while maneuvering boxes at the Walgreens warehouse. The Arbitrator found petitioner’s injury was not causally related to the alleged work injury based upon the testimony of the physicians.

6. Michelle Dillow v. St. Clement Hospital

Petitioner claimed to have developed carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of her work activities as a nurse for respondent. The Arbitrator held petitioner’s condition was not causally related to her employment. Of significance to the Arbitrator’s decision was the testimony of the treating and evaluating physicians. The treating physician was not aware of petitioner’s specific job activities and whether they were hand intensive. The evaluating physician was fully aware of all aspects of petitioner’s job and testified her work activities did not cause her carpal tunnel condition.

7. Michelle Cook v. Walgreens

Petitioner sustained a compensable injury to her knee which required surgery. When her complaints were not completely alleviated, petitioner sought additional medical treatment, including additional surgery. The Arbitrator denied petitioner’s request for additional medical treatment, which included the additional surgery and lost time benefits. She found the respondent’s IME physician to be more credible than the petitioner’s treating physicians based on the fact he had more comprehensive documentation of petitioner’s activity level. Respondent had obtained videotape surveillance of petitioner’s activities which showed she was capable of functioning better than what she had testified to at the time of the hearing. The videotape surveillance also helped to establish petitioner’s lack of credibility.

Petitioner subsequently filed an application for a new injury to her same knee. She not only claimed a repetitive trauma condition, but also a specific injury. This particular claim was denied by the respondent. Depositions of the treating and examining physicians were taken and submitted into evidence. It was the respondent’s position that petitioner’s complaints were related to her prior injury and that any need for treatment was related to petitioner’s prior injury. However, since the Arbitrator had previously decided petitioner was not entitled to additional treatment, she should be precluded from undergoing additional treatment. The Arbitrator found in favor of the respondent and denied petitioner sustained an accident or occupational disease arising out of and in the course of her employment and thereby denied any additional medical treatment.

8. Frank Chandler v. YRC

Petitioner alleged repetitive use of a forklift caused his right shoulder and neck complaints. The case was tried on a 19(b) Petition as the petitioner was requesting authorization of medical treatment and payment of TTD benefits. The Arbitrator found petitioners alleged injury did not arise out of or in the course of his employment with YRC. Therefore, petitioner’s claim for benefits was denied.

9. Amanda Wilder v. Centaur Building Services

Claimant worked in HR for the employer and alleged she contracted tuberculosis as a result of coming in contact with a co-worker who had inactive TB.  The co-worker’s inactive TB became active following a surgery and he eventually died.  Claimant alleged she had a positive TB test despite not being exposed to her co-worker while he had active TB and her chest x-ray was negative.  Opposing counsel demanded just over $35,000.00 to settle the case since claimant condition would need to be monitored for the next ten years.  The case was eventually settled on a disputed basis for $1,500.00.

No Videos At The Moment