LOIS attorney Karen Vincent prevailed in the defense of a motion to restore in the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Court. In that case, where Vincent represented the carrier, the petitioner filed a formal claim petition alleging an accident on June 11, 2016 with significant injuries to the lumbar spine. LOIS filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of employment arguing that the petitioner was a 1099 independent contractor. Petitioner was unable to oppose the original Motion and instead requested a consensual dismissal without prejudice for lack of prosecution.
Several months later, the petitioner filed a Motion to Restore the claim. LOIS again prepared Opposition to the Motion advising that the petitioner had not provided any new discovery to prove employment.
On July 16, 2019, this case was listed as the Motion to Restore. Petitioner’s attorney requested the Court consider allowing him to withdraw the Motion without prejudice so that he could further investigate employment. However, Attorney Vincent pointed out to the Judge that the case had originally been dismissed for that same reason and that the accident was now three years old.
In light of same, the Judge of Compensation held a hearing on the Motion and attorney Karen Vincent won a dismissal WITH prejudice, which is beneficial to the employer because it means the petitioner can never bring those claims again.
LOIS Attorney Andrea Abudayeh prevailed in a case where the claimant was directed to produce evidence of attachment to the labor market because his doctor conceded a partial disability. Instead, the claimant produced evidence that he underwent authorized surgery a week before the hearing. The claimant also argued that he did not have to look for work as he was still employed by the employer of record. He submitted a letter from the employer allegedly confirming the claimant was employed.
LOIS attorney Declan Gourley was successful in getting a low back claim disallowed by the trial judge on August 6, 2019 due to conflicting histories and mechanisms of injury. At trial, through effective cross-examination of the claimant and presentation of employer witnesses, Gourley showed that claimant was terminated for cause and did not notify her employer of a work related injury until after the termination. Additionally, LOIS was able to emphasize numerous discrepancies between the claimant’s testimony, her medical reports and her claim form (C-3). While the claimant insisted notice was provided prior to her termination, the law judge determined there was insufficient evidence that a compensable injury occurred and the reporting of the injury was merely an afterthought following the unrelated termination for cause.
LOIS attorney Joseph Melchionne was successful in getting a claim disallowed based upon an argument that no employer/employee relationship existed between a deliver dasher and Door Dash based upon the facts of the claim and the current case law on the issue. The claimant was injured when he was struck by an SUV in New York City while making a delivery on a bicycle through the Door Dash application. The claimant injured his right leg and right ankle and required surgery to repair his fractured ankle. The claim was denied by carrier based upon an argument that the claimant was an independent contractor and not an employee of Door Dash.
LOIS Law Firm attorney and Construction Practice Team Partner Tashia Rasul successfully procured a finding from the Board Panel that the Claimant did not timely file his claim and therefore disallowed the claim. After a victory at the trial level, Tashia fashioned a legal argument for the Board Panel that both discredited the Claimant and barred the claim – a trademark technique of hers that she has executed time and again to deliver results for her clients. At trial, the Claimant testified that while he was allegedly en route to purchase work supplies in his own personal vehicle, he was rear-ended. After the alleged accident, he never filed a form regarding the accident, never lost time from work, and the employer had no reason to know whether there was an accident. The employer-witnesses testified that employees were not authorized to retrieve work supplies themselves. Tashia argued successfully that the Claimant was not a credible witness and that because the Claimant failed to file within 30 days of the accident, the claim is prejudicial to the employer and should be barred. Continue reading Trial Win: LOIS Construction Practice Leader Successful in Notice Defense→
On July 9, 2019 and in a decision favorable to the employer, the New Jersey Appellate Division vacated an order awarding money benefits to the petitioner and returned the case to the trial court. This remand for new trial, obtained after oral argument presented by Greg Lois, also vacated an order penalizing the employer for late payment of lost time benefits.