ELH tried this matter in Bloomington before Arbitrator Falcioni on October 13, 2005 and November 14, 2005. The Arbitrator ruled in favor of the Respondent with respect to all issues in all cases. The Arbitrator refused to accept the Petitioner’s allegation that she suffered an accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of her employment. He further denied benefits on the basis of causal relationship. No benefits were awarded in any of the cases.
Through effective cross-examination of the Petitioner, Ed Hennessy established the specific time, place and occurrence of alleged accident. Then, with compelling security camera videotape and other information gathered by company investigators, proved conclusively that the alleged accident did not occur where, when and how the Petitioner said it did. The Arbitrator specifically found the Petitioner not to be credible at her testimony to be “completely controverted by the evidence in the record”.
Ed Hennessy tried this matter in 2007. Arbitrator Fratanni adopted his argument in all respects and denied compensation in its entirety. In her Order she concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove that she sustained accidental injuries which arose out of and in the course of her employment, that she further failed to prove that she gave Respondent timely notice and that she failed to prove that her condition of ill-being is causally related to any accidental injury allegedly sustained at work.
Tried in 2007; Arbitrator O’Malley incorporated all arguments asserted by Ed Hennessy in his decision. As proposed, the Arbitrator denied the petitioner’s claim for wage differential under Section 8(d)1, he denied more than 28 weeks of demanded TTD, he awarded medical as proposed (allowing credit for medical expenses paid by group insurance) and he denied the claim for penalties and fees.
Ed Hennessy successfully defended Petitioner’s claim for permanent total disability benefits and further limited Respondent’s liability for TTD and PPD benefits substantially. Established with videotape and testimonial evidence, that the Respondent offered a reasonable accommodation and that the Petitioner’s failure to comply with a bid process demonstrated the Petitioner’s lack of diligence in attempting a return to work.
Ed Hennessy tried this matter in Bloomington before Arbitrator Falcioni in June of 2004. The case involved an altercation between co-employees. At issue was whether the altercation had its origin in the work or the manner in which it was to be performed and whether the Petitioner could be characterized as the aggressor. Arbitrator Falcioni held the injury to be compensable and awarded permanency for a left ankle fracture and over $11,000.00 in medical expenses. The Respondent challenged the decision on review. Although the Commission affirmed Arbitrator’s findings as to accident, causal relationship and permanency, it remanded the matter to the Arbitrator for determination of whether the record would support the award for medical expenses. Respondent contended that the evidence offered by the Petitioner at trial was insufficient to establish medical expense liability pursuant to Section 8(a) on the basis of reasonableness, necessity or causal relationship. Ed Hennessy negotiated a compromise of the disputed sum in a settlement contract subsequent to the remand.
This individual underwent invasive surgery referable to the shoulder and to the lower spine in connection with injuries that he allegedly sustained on three different dates. Ed Hennessy tried and won this matter before Arbitrator Lee in August 2006 in defense of Petitioner’s allegation that he is permanently and totally disabled and in defense of the Petitioner’s demand for more than 2 1/2; years of accrued TTD benefits.
Ed Hennessy tried this matter before Arbitrator White in Urbana on February 16, 2005. Arbitrator White decided in favor for the Respondent, denying compensation on the basis that the Petitioner did not sustain an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment. Arbitrator White ruled that the Petitioner failed to trace her injury or condition to a definite time, place or cause. Further, no reliable medical evidence was offered to plausibly explain how any work she performed for the Respondent could have caused or aggravated her underlying herniated disc problem.
Arbitrator Lee heard this matter pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act and limited his rulings to accident, causal relationship and award for TTD and medical. Arbitrator Lee ruled in favor of the Petitioner on issues of accident and causal relationship. Necessarily, he awarded TTD that accrued as well as medical expenses of $765.39. In awarding the benefits, the Arbitrator ignored evidence at the Petitioner had worked for three subsequent employers before proceeding with thumb surgery. The matter was resolved on a compromised basis contractorily after the Respondent elected not to pursue an appeal.
Ed Hennessy tried this matter before Arbitrator Lee on March 15, 2006. Arbitrator Lee adopted Respondent’s proposed decision in its entirety, awarding 30% loss of the right hand and acknowledging a credit owed to the Respondent in the amount of $9,328.52 for overpaid TTD. The Petitioner secured modification on appeal, but Respondent retained credit for over $5,000.00.
Petitioner’s attorney pressed for a Section 19(b) trial of this case before Arbitrator Lee on September 2, 2005. Although Arbitrator Lee ruled against the Respondent and additionally awarded penalties, Petitioner’s attorney committed many mistakes, one in particular potentially costing his client more than $22,000.00 in medical expenses. Of particular significance, Petitioner’s attorney failed to introduce evidence at the first Section 19(b) trial. Petitioner’s attorney attempted to offer the records in the second 19(b) trial, but the arbitrator sustained our objection on the basis of res judicata. Based upon that leverage, we were able to reach a reasonable settlement with Petitioner’s attorney, which did not include the awarded penalties.
The Petitioner in this case suffered from a congenital spine condition which caused her brain stem to slip into her neck. Despite evidence offered to the contrary, the Arbitrator found that the Petitioner’s job aggravated her underlying conditions resulting in significant permanency. The award though was kept in terms of permanency rather than permanent total disability as was included in the Petitioner’s prayer. The Respondent elected to pay the award and close the case. The Petitioner also chose not to appeal.
Highly favorable outcome in 2007, achieved largely from very careful factual investigation and the assembly of reliable witnesses. Petitioner reluctantly agreed on the date of trial to close the case pertaining to a van accident that the Respondent had denied based upon numerous inconsistencies.