footerLogo
  • Our Practice
    • Workers’ Compensation Defense
    • No-Fault Defense
    • Subrogation
    • Loss Transfer
    • Construction Practice
  • About Us
    • Our Philosophy
    • Our Pledge
  • Our Attorneys
  • Blog
Client Portal

Consult Now
212.776.1808

212.776.1808

Client Portal
footer-logo
  • Our Practice
    • Workers’ Compensation Defense
    • No-Fault Defense
    • Subrogation
    • Loss Transfer
    • Construction Practice
  • About Us
    • Our Philosophy
    • Our Pledge
  • Our Attorneys
  • Blog

Blog

Home > Archives for Blog

Major Win Alert: Jones Jones Saves Carrier More Than $84,000 in SLU Appeal

03.05.2026

Congratulations to the Jones Jones team on the successful appeal of a workplace injury claim resulting in more than $84,559 in savings for a carrier client in front of the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board.

 

The claimant filed a workplace injury claim for a left foot injury they said was the result of an accident that occurred on March 3, 2023. Prior to this claim, the individual had a significant pre-existing injury from a non-workplace-related incident which occurred about 50 years earlier. The prior injury resulted in a fusion to the left foot and staples which had since led to degenerative changes, as stated by the claimant’s doctor. At the September 16, 2024, deposition the claimant’s doctor testified that he supported a 40% causally related schedule loss of use (SLU) award. The claimant’s counsel later appealed and argued for a 60% SLU award for the left foot.

 

The insurance carrier’s medical consultant performed an independent medical examination (IME) and found the claimant had a 0% SLU of the left foot attributable to this claim. A thorough review of an earlier CT scan revealed no range of motion in the fused area of the claimant’s left foot prior to this accident. Additionally, the claimant’s doctor cleared the individual to return to work following a subsequent doctor’s visit on March 30, 2023, further proving the injury to be unrelated to a workplace incident and therefore non-compensable.

 

Jones Jones used these findings to perform a cross-examination related to the original medical records provided by the claimant’s doctors and argue against the claimant’s requested SLU award to file a rebuttal. Jones Jones’ thorough cross-examination of the records supported the workers’ compensation judge’s ruling that there was no apportionment because 0% of the impairment was caused by the work injury.

 

The Jones Jones team combed and examined a multitude of documents and leveraged their keen negotiation skills to secure an appeal for this case on the basis of a lack of relevant evidence of a workplace injury. Congratulations to Samantha Sokoloff and Michelle Nagesar for their well-deserved win in this case. If you are in need of assistance with a workers’ compensation case, please contact our appellate team at concierge@jonesjonesllc.com.

Filed Under: Blog

Major Win Alert: Jones Jones Disallows Claim on Behalf of Construction Company

03.03.2026

Congratulations to Jones Jones Partner Stacee Vaikness on the successful disallowance of a workers’ compensation claim on behalf of a construction client in front of the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board.

 

In this case, the claimant filed a workplace injury claim for alleged repetitive motion injuries to the right elbow, bilateral hips and knees. At a hearing on October 14, 2025, the claimant testified their pain began approximately six years ago but could not recall where they were working at that time. The claimant also noted they did not seek medical attention until February of 2025. The claimant’s physician could not provide specific evidence as to the type of strenuous work the claimant had been doing that could have resulted in injury. In addition to a lack of evidence, the claimant did not request any changes in their job duties or take any time from work due to the alleged injuries for the past six years.

 

The claimant’s employer as of October 2025 stated their job duties did not require extensive physical labor such as heavy lifting, and the claimaint never reported an injury. A second recent employer stated the claimant’s work required some lifting, but that they never reported injuries or accidents while working at the company. The carriers for each employer stated that the claimant had no occupational disease or injury exposure.

 

After a detailed review of the materials, Vaikness argued for a full disallowance based on a lack of sufficient correlation between the claimant’s work duties and alleged injuries. The judge ultimately ruled in favor of Jones Jones’ client, finding insufficient evidence to establish a causal relationship between the claimant’s injuries and occupation. The judge found the claimant’s former employers were more credible sources in the case than the claimant’s doctor.

 

Congratulations to Vaikness and her team for their work on this case and successful disallowance of the claim on behalf of the construction client. If you are in need of assistance with a workers’ compensation case, please contact our team at concierge@jonesjonesllc.com.

Filed Under: Blog

Client Alert! Proposed NY WC Deposition Changes: Impact and Our Guidance

01.30.2026

Dear Client,

On Jan. 21, 2026, the New York Workers’ Compensation Board (The Board) issued proposed changes to its regulations governing medical depositions. These proposed changes are currently open for public comment at regulations@wcb.ny.gov through March 22, 2026.

While many of the proposed changes formalize existing practice, several provisions will meaningfully impact litigation strategy, evidentiary expectations and how medical disputes are evaluated by Workers’ Compensation Law Judges.

To help you navigate these proposed changes, we have compiled a summary below, followed by insights from Jones Jones LLC for employers, carriers, third party administrators (TPAs) and self-insureds to consider.

The Changes:

12 NYCRR §300.10(c) – Adjournments for Medical Cross-Examination

  • Law Judges may, but are not required to, grant adjournments, or temporary postponements, to produce a treating physician for cross-examination.
  • Any denial of an adjournment by the law judge must be explained on the record.
  • Additional adjournments may only be called if the law judge finds sufficient excuse for the physician’s original non-appearance and are conditioned on subpoena use.
  • If the physician ultimately does not appear, the case will generally proceed on the existing record absent extraordinary circumstances.
  • Responsibility for enforcing subpoenas rests squarely with the employer/carrier.

12 NYCRR §300.10(e) – Responsibility for Depositions (New Section)

  • Regardless of which party requests a deposition, the employer/carrier is responsible for:
    • Securing the medical witness
    • Issuing subpoenas if necessary
    • Retaining and paying the stenographer
    • Filing and serving deposition transcripts
    • Bearing all deposition-related costs

In practice, this largely reflects what defense counsel already does, but it formally allocates responsibility in the regulations. We urge all clients to review their current deposition process to assess and adjust for any cost increases.

12 NYCRR §300.10(f) – Extensions for Deposition Transcripts (New Section)

  • Extensions must be requested in writing, on or before the deadline, and in a Board-prescribed format.

This appears to be the current common practice among stakeholders as it stands now.

12 NYCRR §§301.1 and 301.3 – Medical Witness Fees

  • Deposition fees for physicians and other medical providers will increase significantly, particularly if not paid within 45 days.
  • Unpaid fees accrue interest in the same manner as unpaid medical bills.
  • These provisions heighten the importance of timely payment and accurate fee processing.

What Jones Jones Clients Should Consider

While the proposed changes do not dramatically shift who performs deposition logistics, if passed, these changes will alter the litigation environment for medical disputes. Some key insights employers, carriers, third party administrators (TPAs) and self-insureds should consider include:

  1. Increased Strategic Importance of Cross-Examination: Judges may feel more comfortable proceeding on the existing record when treating physicians are not available. As a result, defense counsel will need to make more deliberate, earlier decisions about when cross-examination of treating providers is necessary—and be prepared to explain those decisions on the record.

 

  1. Independent Medical Examination (IME) Quality Will Matter More: Independent medical examinations (IMEs) will increasingly need to stand on their own when treating doctors are not cross examined. Reports should be thorough, well-reasoned and directly address treating opinions, causation and credibility. Conclusory or formulaic IMEs will be more vulnerable under this framework.

 

  1. Greater Scrutiny of Unrebutted Treating Opinions:Where no cross-examination occurs, there is a heightened risk unrebutted treating opinions will carry more weight. This places increased pressure on the defense to ensure the evidentiary record is sufficiently developed.

 

  1. Consistency in Judicial Application Will Be Critical:The proposed rules create discretion for judges. Predictability and fairness will depend on consistent application, particularly regarding when cross-examination is expected and when IME evidence alone is sufficient.

 

How Jones Jones can Help

If you are in need of assistance in drafting a response, please contact us at concierge@jonesjones.com and an attorney will be in touch to coordinate draft comments on your behalf.

For more information on the proposed changes, please visit the Board’s webpage. If you have additional questions about how these proposed changes may impact you, please contact us at concierge@jonesjones.com.

Filed Under: Blog, Education, News

Featured Article: “Defining ‘Extraordinary:’ NY State Law Triggers Nationwide Changes to Mental Health Claims” by Managing Partner Sarah Thomas

01.28.2026

Jones Jones LLC is pleased to congratulate Managing Partner Sarah Thomas for her excellent article contribution to Risk & Insurance Magazine.

 

In her article, Sarah examines how recent changes to New York workers’ compensation law are reshaping the handling of mental health claims—developments that are already influencing legislation in other states and signaling a broader shift across the country.

 

As legislation evolves in New York and other states, risk managers and employers should prepare for an anticipated rise in mental health claims. Sarah outlines both potential challenges and opportunities—including how the industry might address long-tail exposures, the nuanced nature of psychological injuries, and the importance of developing proactive workplace support strategies.


You can read the full article here

📄Download the Article

Filed Under: Blog, Education

Major Win Alert: Jones Jones LLC Secures Dismissal, Avoiding Extreme Hardship Claim

12.15.2025

Jones Jones LLC is pleased to share that Diane Mandleur, Ian Leaderman and their team recently secured the successful dismissal of a potentially costly extreme hardship claim against an entertainment industry client.

 

In this case, the claimant was previously classified with a 90% loss of wage-earning capacity, with PPD benefits set to expire in August 2025. The carrier made an aggregate trust fund (ATF) payment in 2017. Jones Jones facilitated a Section 32 Settlement of the medical portion of the claim, made final in 2019. The claimant filed an Extreme Hardship Redetermination application in July 2025.

 

At a hearing in August, the Jones Jones’ team presented an argument stating that the language in the Section 32 Waiver Agreement, signed by the claimant, resulted in a full and final settlement of the case, including any and all future claims that may arise from the injury. This argument was further supported by a previous settlement fee received by the claimant’s attorney after the original case, which could only be paid from indemnity. The Jones Jones’ team negotiated convincingly to insist the claim was full and final, and the claimant should not receive an extension on the benefits.

 

Most recently, at the Thursday, Dec. 11 hearing, the judge ruled that the claimant did not have the right to extreme hardship reclassification based on the previous settlement agreement and a lack of jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s application for extreme hardship. Jones Jones is prepared to respond to an anticipated appeal from the Judge’s ruling.

 

By encouraging a thorough review of the Section 32 Waiver Agreement, Jones Jones was able to secure a dismissal of the claimant’s application for extreme hardship, resulting in an estimated savings of more than $400,000 in indemnity for Jones Jones’ entertainment client.

 

Congratulations to Diane, Ian and their team for their successful dismissal of claimant’s application! If you are in need of assistance with a workers’ compensation case, please contact our team at concierge@jonesjonesllc.com.

 


📄Download 

Filed Under: Blog

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 24
  • »
Group 5
NEW YORK
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK

clientservices@jonesjonesllc.com

5 Hanover Square, Suite 1001, New York, NY 10004

212.776.1808

NEW JERSEY

clientservices@jonesjonesllc.com

30 Montgomery St, Jersey City, NJ 07302

212.776.1808

  • Our Philosophy

  • Our Attorneys 

  • Legal Disclaimer

  • Privacy Policy

  • Resources

  • Blog

  • Legal Disclaimer

  • Privacy Policy

© 2022 Jones Jones Llc. All Rights Reserved. Digital Marketing by a circuit board