Author: Jones Jones

We are excited to announce a major win secured by Jones Jones  LLC Attorney Samantha Sokoloff.  This win highlights:

• The aggressive approach needed on occupational disease claims that are filed after a regular retirement has been taken by a claimant;
• The need for a knowledgeable and aggressive  litigation plan on potential high dollar schedule loss of use claims; and
• The importance of bringing to the Board’s attention that the burden of demonstrating a link between an alleged condition and distinctive feature of employment is on solely on the claimant.

Attorney Samantha Sokoloff recently litigated a New York State workers’ compensation claim involving an retired public transit worker.  This particular claimant had worked with a transit authority for almost 30 years in a somewhat physically demanding job.  After the claimant took a regular retirement, he then proceeded to file a workers’ compensation claim alleging occupational disease to the legs, ankles, and feet.

With no witness available, Attorney Sokoloff was able to execute a stellar cross-examination of the claimant.  With this testimony, she was able to highlight to the Law Judge that the claimant had not lost any time from work prior to his retirement due to any pain or injury to any of the alleged body parts.  She was also able to have the claimant concede that he had not seen a doctor about these alleged conditions until after his regular retirement began and that he had a choice to take a disability type of retirement but declined to go that route. Attorney Sokoloff asked that claimant whether he had ever discussed the alleged physical injuries with his primary physician; to which he said he had not. Finally, the claimant was unable to articulate as to what his job duties with his employer was and how he was unable to perform them anymore.

Upon summations, Attorney Sokoloff argued to the Law Judge that the claimant had failed to demonstrate a recognizable link between his condition and a distinctive feature of his employment.  Additionally, the testimony of the claimant’s treating doctor was also highlighted during summations.  The doctor had failed to know any specifics about the claimant’s work history or medical treatment history.  The Law Judge disallowed the claim entirely based upon the winning litigation strategy of Attorney Sokoloff.

This is an important win to consider as there has been an increasing trend within the workers’ compensation system of retirees seeking numerous and high value schedule loss of use awards for occupational diseases. Many of these claims involve no treatment nor notice of any such injury or condition until after the claimant has successfully retired from employment.  Additionally, many of these claims involve a number of body parts that are amendable to a schedule loss of use finding for permanency.  This could equate to a large lump sum award to the claimant post retirement when there is simply a lack of evidence to support any such claim up until their retirement is confirmed.  Due to the high value of these potential claims, it is important to defend post-retiree occupational disease claims with an aggressive approach.  The attorneys of Jones Jones LLC are prepared to navigate these retirement and occupational disease claims with you every step of the way.  The same aggressive and detailed approach that Attorney Sokoloff applied on this case will be applied to your caseload as well.

Contact us at clientservices@jonesjonesllc.com today to set up a consultation.

We are excited to announce a major win secured by Jones Jones LLC Associate Ian Leaderman. This win showcases:

• The aggressive approach needed on construction claims involving allegations of injury to many body parts and medical conditions;
• The success that results from a detailed review of on-site and emergency room records; and
• The importance of bringing to the law judge’s attention any change in claimant’s account of the mechanism of injury.

Attorney Ian Leaderman recently litigated a claim involving an injured employee of a construction company. The claimant was initially injured due to striking his face while at work on a construction site. The claim was established for the head and left eye only. Approximately, one month later after the establishment of his claim, the claimant alleged that in addition to the accepted and established body parts, he also injured his neck, back, bilateral knees, bilateral shoulders, as well as developed PTSD.

Attempting to establish additional body parts is an activity that defense carriers and attorneys often observe; especially when it comes to claims involving construction incidents. Why do we see this pattern of additional body parts repeatedly be raised on construction claims? Well, very often, the claimant not only has a workers’ compensation claim, but he or she may also have a general liability suit. This lawsuit enables the claimant to seek large monetary payouts by way of settlement or court decision. Expanding the workers’ compensation injuries on construction claims to as many body parts and conditions as possible may assist in this other lawsuit. Therefore, it is important to defend workers’ compensation construction claims with an aggressive approach to limit exposure on both the workers’ compensation claim and the general liability lawsuit.

Attorney Leaderman undertook the necessary aggressive approach on this case. He was able to gather and review the construction company’s on-site medical report and the emergency room records from the day of the accident. Upon a thorough review of these records, it became evident that the claimant had put forth two different version of the injury event. The initial emergency room records and on-site accident report detailed a strike to the face with injury to head and left eye. Subsequent medical reports began to list all of the additional body parts the claimant was attempting to amend the claim to include. Most interestingly, these reports also detailed a completely different mechanism of injury—involving an item falling from a ceiling. Attorney Leaderman was able to highlight these discrepancies to the law judge, which ultimately culminated in all of the additional body parts and conditions to be disallowed entirely. Jones Jones LLC is happy to guide you through the intricacies of construction litigation and apply this same detailed litigation approach to your claims.

Contact us at clientservices@jonesjonesllc.com today to set up a consultation.

We are excited to announce a major win secured by Jones Jones LLC Associate Dana Sabghir. This win showcases:

• Our innovative approach to denied claims;
• The importance of our focused witness preparation;
• The impact of securing subpoenaed medical records and thoroughly reviewing them for use in litigation; and
• Targeted testimony of the claimant with use of medical records to develop a clear timeline for a path towards disallowance of numerous body parts and conditions.

This airline claim involved a claimant’s allergic reaction, which had been established for contact dermatitis. The claimant later requested lost time benefits dating back to 2017, and raised numerous neurological and autoimmune conditions. Though the Law Judge found prima facie medical evidence, Attorney Sabghir believed that the lost time and additional conditions could not reasonably be related to the contact dermatitis, and so she began her skillful defense. First, she cross-examined the claimant and presented our expert witnesses, who had been extensively prepared for testimony. The claimant was asked detailed questions about her complaints, the timeline of her alleged symptoms, her prior treatment, her family history, the alleged exposure that she was relating all of these conditions to, her lost time, etc. Based on her testimony, and her concessions regarding prior treatment, Attorney Sabghir requested a HIPAA and a list of all treating providers.

Next, the Jones Jones LLC subpoena team subpoenaed thousands of pages of medical records. In those records, we determined that the claimant had a family history of autoimmune disorders, history of allergies, among other medical findings. We also learned that the claimant had trained in a different field, and obtained a professional certificate, just before the alleged allergic reaction. The Jones Jones LLC team sent these voluminous records to our Independent Medical Examiner for review, and the doctor conducted a thorough physical examination. Ultimately, the IME found no causal relationship for these additional sites, and depositions were directed of the claimant’s treating doctors. We focused our deposition questions on very specific details that we had learned in the subpoenaed records. The doctors conceded that they were not aware of the prior complaints and treatment, conceded that they did not know how the accident of record could have caused her neurological and autoimmune conditions, and conceded that they could not relate these conditions to the accident of record within a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Lastly, Attorney Sabghir requested re-cross-examination of the claimant based on her review of the records. She noted the various contradictions between the claimant’s initial testimony, the history related in the medical records, and her latest testimony. The Law Judge reviewed the extensive medical record, the lay testimony, the medical testimony, and our arguments, and ultimately disallowed all of the additional sites claimed, and properly found that the claimant had no compensable lost time with no entitlement to awards. Our success was a result of the extensive concessions Attorney Sabghir was able to obtain from the claimant and her doctors. This litigation plan exemplifies the Jones Jones LLC signature determination and focus needed to successfully litigate the most complicated of claims.