Trial Results
Back Injury
Our client was employed as a flight attendant and injured her back while removing a suitcase from the overhead compartment. The workers’ compensation carrier denied her claim, alleging that the incident did not happen, there was no work-related accident and our client’s employment was not the major contributing cause of her injury. The denial forced our client to receive treatment through her health insurance, including multiple injections and back surgery.
After retaining an expert witness and taking multiple depositions of experts and other witnesses, we went to trial, and the Workers’ Compensation Judge ruled in our favor, awarding treatment for our client’s back injury and lost-wage benefits.
Securing compensability of a back injury with payment for back surgery and payment of lost wage benefits.
Knee Injury
Our client is a Nurse Transition Specialist who suffered a significant knee injury and developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), which is a chronic pain nerve condition. Due to the CRPS, our client had significant difficulty walking and unfortunately became wheelchair bound. When our client became dependent upon others for transportation due to her condition, we filed a claim for a wheelchair accessible van. The workers’ compensation insurance company refused to provide such a van and denied the claim.
Due to the insurance company’s denial of the van, we obtained the testimony of doctors and a certified driver rehabilitation specialist. After trial on the issue, the workers’ compensation judge ruled in our favor and ordered the insurance company to provide our client with a wheelchair accessible van with hand controls. The van enabled our client to have the freedom to travel without relying on others for assistance and significantly improved her quality of life.
Securing wheelchair access.
Long Recovery
Secured an increase in the maximum number of weeks of temporary disability benefits
Our client suffered a significant injury that required lengthy and extensive treatment. After our client received 260 weeks of combined Temporary Total Disability (TTD) and Temporary Partial Disability (TPD) benefits, the workers’ compensation insurance company denied further temporary disability benefits. The denial was based on a common interpretation amongst insurance companies and attorneys that the workers’ compensation statute only provided for a maximum of 260 weeks of combined TTD and TPD benefits.
After additional review of the statute and conducting a considerable amount of legal research, attorney Jeffrey M. Friedman argued that the workers’ compensation statute provides for a maximum of 260 weeks of TTD benefits AND a maximum of 260 weeks of TPD benefits. This statutory interpretation had never before been argued in court. After a trial on the issue, the workers’ compensation judge agreed with Mr. Friedman’s interpretation of the statute and awarded additional lost wage benefits.
In the same case, just days before trial, Mr. Friedman convinced the insurance company to accept our client as permanently and totally disabled (PTD) and pay PTD lost wage benefits.
In the same case as above, the workers’ compensation insurance company denied additional treatment, including surgery, for a shoulder surgery, alleging the work-related accident was no longer the major contributing cause of the need for treatment. It was the insurance company’s position that treatment of the shoulder was due to a work-related accident 8 years before the new work-related accident.
After obtaining expert witness medical opinions and multiple doctor depositions, the case went to trial. At trial, Mr. Friedman argued that our accident aggravated the pre-existing shoulder injury, causing the need for additional treatment, including surgery. Additionally, as with the other trial, Mr. Friedman argued that there was no cause of a pre-existing shoulder injury other than the prior work injury, so our injury remains the major contributing cause of the need for treatment. The judge agreed with Mr. Friedman and ordered the insurance company to continue to provide shoulder treatment, including the recommended surgery.
Secured Shoulder Surgery
Our client was employed as a server at a restaurant when he fell and landed on both knees. When the authorized treating doctor recommended treatment for arthritis in the knee, the worker’ compensation insurance company denied the claim, alleging that the arthritis is a pre-existing condition and the work accident was not the major contributing cause of the need for treatment.
Attorney Jeffrey Friedman argued that the fall at work aggravated the pre-existing asymptomatic arthritis, since the client never had knee pain prior to his work accident. Mr. Friedman obtained testimony from an orthopedic surgeon that in the absence of any complaints of knee pain prior to the fall, the arthritic condition was aggravated by the fall. The orthopedic surgeon further testified that the aggravation of the pre-existing condition was the major contributing cause of the need for treatment. The workers’ compensation judge agreed with Mr. Friedman’s arguments and ordered the insurance company to provide treatment for the client’s knee arthritis as well as payment of lost wage benefits.
Secured Knee Treatments
Back Injury
Secured treatment for back injury and payment of lost wage benefits.
Our client is a Plumber who was injured his back and shoulder in a motor vehicle accident while driving the company truck. After briefly providing medical care, the workers’ compensation insurance company denied the claim, alleging that the need for treatment was no longer due to the work-related accident. The insurance company also raised a misrepresentation defense, alleging that our client was not truthful with his doctor regarding a prior back injury.
After obtaining an orthopedic surgeon as our expert witness and deposing all of the doctors and several other witnesses, we went to trial. The workers’ compensation judge agreed with Mr. Friedman that the work-related accident aggravated the pre-existing back injury and remains the cause of the need for treatment. The judge further agreed with Mr. Friedman that since the pre-existing back injury was also from a work-related accident, the pre-existing back condition could not be used against our client in proving that his new accident is the major contributing cause of the need for treatment. Lastly, the judge agreed that there was no evidence that our client was not truthful with his doctor regarding his prior back injury. Therefore, the judge ordered the insurance company to continue to provide treatment for the back injury and awarded payment of lost wage benefits.
Our client was employed as a Route Sales Driver. His job duties included moving metal and plastic drums that weigh 200 to 400 pounds. While he had equipment to transport the drums, he was still required to push or pull the drums to get them in place to use the equipment. After a few weeks, he developed pain in both shoulders. We filed a claim for compensability of the injuries based on repetitive trauma. The workers’ compensation insurance company denied the claim, alleging that there was no accident within course and scope of employment, the injuries did not arise out of employment, and the employment was not the major contributing cause of the need for treatment.
Based on the insurance company denial, Mr. Friedman obtained testimony from an orthopedic surgeon that the shoulder injuries were a result of our client’s repetitive activities at work. The workers’ compensation judge agreed with Mr. Friedman and ruled that the bilateral shoulder injuries were compensable, and ordered the insurance company to provide medical care and pay lost wage benefits.
Repetitive Trauma Injuries
