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

News

Home > Posts

Major Win Alert: Jones Jones LLC wins Labor Market Attachment Issue on Appeal

07.07.2025

Congratulations to Jones Jones Supervising Partner Rosanna Shamash and her team on the successful appeal of a workers’ compensation law judge’s (WCLJ) decision in front of the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board (NYSWCB). This appeal reversed the claimant’s status as seeking employment in good faith, and instead, limited the claimant’s rights to benefits, opening the conversation for settlement.

 

In this case, the claimant received injuries to their right ankle with the most recent independent medical examination (IME) report stating a 75% degree of disability. At a previous hearing, the WCLJ found the claimant to be seeking employment in good faith and continued the awards. Despite the continuation of awards, the WCLJ also previously granted Shamash’s application to cross-examine the claimant.

 

In preparation for this hearing, Shamash dissected approximately 100 pages of the claimant’s submitted work search documents and googled each job posting to verify their requirements.  When questioning the claimant, Shamash asked about the job requirements for each listing and was able to show that the claimant’s experience clearly did not align with the jobs listed. Additionally, the claimant had not submitted any current evidence of a good faith work search from the time between the previous hearing and the most recent hearing. It was made clear that the claimant had been arbitrarily applying for jobs.

 

When asking the claimant about documentation from an employment center they had visited, the claimant shared that they only visited the center to use their computers and apply for jobs. The claimant did not meet with any job counselors or attend any workshops while visiting the center.

 

Shamash’s thorough research and close attention to detail contributed to securing the team’s win and paving the way to a settlement with the claimant in this case. If you are in need of assistance with a workers’ compensation case, please contact our appellate team at concierge@jonesjonesllc.com. 

 


📄Download

Filed Under: Blog

New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Fact Sheet 2025

07.07.2025

Jones Jones LLC knows that workers’ compensation claims can be complex. In an industry bogged down by forms, statutes, and filings, we aim for efficiency in all we do.  To that end, we wanted to make sure that you, our clients, had access to the most up-to-date pertinent information regarding New Jersey workers’ compensation.

Are you an examiner that is looking for a quick reference? Are you a risk manager overseeing New Jersey claims? Are you an employer addressing your first workers’ compensation case? Please look no further than the Jones Jones LLC New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Fact Sheet.

 

JJ_NJFactSheet_2025-2018thru2025

 


📄Download

Filed Under: Blog, Education

Major Win Alert: Jones Jones Successful on SLU Issue Before Board Panel

06.12.2025

Jones Jones LLC congratulates Associate Kevin Moy and his team on successfully rebutting an administrative review of a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) decision.  

 

In this case, the claim was previously established for injuries involving the claimant’s right wrist and hand, both knees, right foot and right shoulder. Two independent medical examiners (IMEs) assessed the claimant. The first IME evaluated the claimant in 2022, and after several visits examining the injuries, conducted a permanency exam assessing 70% SLU of the right shoulder.  

 

In a deposition facilitated by Jones Jones Associate Samantha Sokoloff, the IME noted the claimant’s extreme range of motion deficits due to forgoing surgery to the right shoulder, and inflammation that waxes and wanes with the weather influenced their assessment. A second IME later examined the claimant and assessed a 20% SLU of the right arm, and 10% SLU of the left leg. The WCLJ deemed the second IME more credible, and their assessment was used in the deliberation.  

 

In its application for administrative review, the claimant argued the WCLJ had erred in deeming the first IME’s testimony as less credible. Moy and his team contended the WCLJ’s decision should be affirmed as the first IME’s findings were inconsistent due to basing their assessment on the claimant’s range of motion changing day to day and did not consider that the claimant had previously returned to work without restriction before gaining an additional injury. The team also shared that the first IME had included consideration of mild abnormalities in internal/external rotations in his original opinion, conflicting with Chapter 5.4 under the 2018 impairment guidelines, which states these considerations should not be added to avoid cumulative values.  

 

Moy and his team’s extensive research, along with Sokoloff’s thorough questioning, secured an affirmation from the Board on the WCLJ’s original decision. If you require assistance with a workers’ compensation case, please contact our appellate team at concierge@jonesjonesllc.com.  


📄Download

Filed Under: Blog

Body Creep: Are Your Claims at Risk?  

05.22.2025

Dear Valued Clients, 

Many of you have shared with us your continued challenges with body creep in the construction space. In response to this challenge, we are pleased to share the following information on mitigating body creep within the court system.  

What is Body Creep? 

Body creep is a phenomenon that occurs in workers’ compensation when a case is subject to attempted body part expansions. After filing an initial workers’ compensation claim, the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorney, will file for additions to be included in the claim. These additions expand on and escalate the initial injury, seeking to relate subsequent symptoms or injuries requiring medical treatment to the claimant and increase compensation through ties to related general liability claims.  

Why is This an Issue in Construction? 

In New York state, when there is an accident on a construction job site, two types of claims can arise. The first type of claim is a workers’ compensation claim, which provides for lost wages and ensures the injured party receives treatment. The second type of potential case is a general liability (GL) claim. With a GL claim, there are several issues a plaintiff can pursue, including but not limited to: 

  • Pain and suffering 
  • Bodily injury 
  • Property damage  
  • Repair costs and legal fees 

Because GL claims involve more issues, there is more potential for exposure and damage to the employer. The complexity of GL cases related to workers’ compensation claims in construction also means they take longer to settle and typically settle for more.  

In summary: when a workers’ compensation case in construction is subject to body creep, the case almost always becomes more complicated and costly for the employer and insurer. 

How to Spot Body Creep 

A key indicator of body creep impacting a workers’ compensation case would be inconsistencies in the claimant’s report. Inconsistencies to look for include:  

  • Shifting timelines 
  • Injuries or body parts added to the injury report after-the-fact 
  • Changes to the story regarding the mechanism of injury 
  • Missing or altered medical reports 

Any change or shift the plaintiff or their attorney makes to the claim or their testimony throughout the case should trigger concern for body creep. Because body creep can sneak up on a case quickly, attention to detail is vital when defending such a case. Attorneys who focus on report documentation and detail will be better positioned to defend against body creep. 

Mitigating Body Creep 

Identifying when a case is susceptible to body creep is only the first step in mitigating or minimizing this possibility in a case. Fortunately, there are other tactics construction owners, risk managers and attorneys can use, including: 

  • Documentation: When consulting with your attorney about a workers’ compensation case, provide them with documents such as the initial investigation report, onsite medical report, witness statements, investigation materials, videos/photos from the scene and the claimant’s initial recorded statement. Having documentation from every step of the process will allow your defense to recognize changes and inconsistencies that could lead to body creep.
    Similarly for attorneys, it is important to document every change and inconsistency that occurs after gathering the initial reports. This documentation allows you to provide a judge with tangible evidence that changes were made. 
  • Collaboration: It is vital to connect your workers’ compensation and GL attorneys quickly if you suspect body creep. While a workers’ compensation attorney may not be familiar with your GL case, cross collaboration is important for a strong defense. Your workers’ compensation attorney may have insights into the situation that your GL attorney may not have and vice versa. By connecting the two parties, you are expanding your resources to defend the case. 
  • Patience: Construction owners or insurers may be tempted to proactively secure an opinion on additional sites from an independent medical examiner (IME) as soon as those sites are added to the case. This has the potential to backfire. For example, if a claimant adds body sites to a case and a carrier gets an IME on the causal relationship before the Prima Facie Medical Evidence (PFME) finding has been shared, and the IME finds a causal relationship, it can make it difficult to make any other arguments finding the additional site not causally related. In this scenario, it is best to wait for specific directions from the judge requiring an IME.  
  • Safety First: Construction site safety is the best way to minimize the risk of body creep as well as any workers’ compensation claims. If a site is safe and employees are properly trained and fitted with PPE, there is less risk of injury or workers’ compensation claims, including those susceptible to body creep. 

While accidents and subsequent claims are not completely avoidable, identifying cases that could be open to body creep and taking the steps above to prepare and defend against this phenomenon can help save construction owners and their insurers from costly and complicated cases.  

Our goal at Jones Jones is to continually improve and provide you, our clients, with additional support and resources each day. This information sheet is one of the many ways we work to put you first. If you have questions about body creep, or if you are facing a workers’ compensation claim you are concerned may involve body creep, please connect with Managing Partner Sarah Thomas at sthomas@jonesjonesllc.com.  


📄Download

Filed Under: Blog, Education, News

Major Win Alert: Jones Jones Secures Reversal

04.24.2025

Jones Jones LLC congratulates Associate Diane Mandleur on successfully reversing a decision regarding restarting and continuing awards in front of the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board.

In this case, the claim previously established injuries to the claimant’s left ankle and foot with a temporary moderate degree of disability. The claimant’s podiatrist later stated the claimant had 100% degree of disability. In a later hearing, the workers’ compensation law judge (WCLJ) directed the claimant to submit proof of labor market attachment, such as job applications, due to concern from the self-insured employer (SIE) . The WCLJ determined the claimant had provided sufficient proof of labor market attachment and awarded benefits for the corresponding period of time.

 

When appealing the decision, Mandleur researched each individual job posting submitted by the claimant and calculated the distance and time it would theoretically take them to get to work. Of the 96 job applications filed, 71 of the locations were at least 45 minutes from their home with numerous employers an hour and a half away. This distance would make it difficult for the claimant to work these jobs as they do not have a car or drive.

 

Additionally, the claimant did not participate in reemployment services or vocational programs that qualify as displaying labor market reattachment under American Axle. As a result, the WCLJ found that the record did not support a finding of a good-faith job search in support of continuing awards.

 

Mandleur’s diligent research and close attention to detail secured a reversal of the decision. If you are in need of assistance with a worker’s compensation case, please contact our appellate team at clientservices@jonesjonesllc.com.


📄Download

Filed Under: Blog

  • «
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • …
  • 23
  • »
Assault-Case-LargeDownload
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