Attorney Greg Lois leads a presentation and discussion on the general legal defenses available in New York workers’ compensation claims. This video is from the LIVE presentation (webinar) offered by the Firm on June 17, 2019.
Attorney Greg Lois leads a presentation and discussion on general legal defenses available to employers in New Jersey workers’ compensation claims. This video is from the May 28, 2019 webinar presentation offered by Lois Law Firm.
Continue reading Recent Case Developments Applying the Coming-and-GoinG Defense: Third Friday Podcast
Host Christian Sison discusses recent case law developments relating to the “going and coming” defense of off-premises injuries before the New York Workers’ Compensation Board.
LOIS Law Firm attorney and Construction Practice Team Partner Tashia Rasul successfully argued to the Board Panel that the Claimant was not within the bounds of her employment during the accident, thus disallowing the claim. The Claimant injured herself while at a local coffee shop during working hours. After a thorough cross-examination of the Claimant and employer-witness, the Law Judge agreed that the Claimant was not within the scope of her employment because there was no authorization for employees to get coffee and, therefore, the employer is not liable. Continue reading Trial Win: Lois Partner Tashia Rasul Prevails on Appeal
Attorney Greg Lois leads a presentation and discussion on the general legal defenses available in New York workers’ compensation claims. This video is from a live presentation on May 20, 2019.
In a case involving a major national retailer, LOIS attorney Rhey Duque was successful in having a claim disallowed by the trial judge on 5/2/19 after cross-examination of the claimant by Duque. This was despite the defense IME conceding causal relationship. The claimant was employed by a retail store in a mall and alleged a fall in the mall parking lot close to an entrance to the mall. Mr. Duque was able to show that the accident was not compensable as claimant fell in the a mall parking lot and there were no special hazards that the general public was not also exposed to. While the claimant attempted to argue that she parked in close proximity to her employer’s location and was walking to an employee entrance, Mr. Duque obtained favorable testimony that the claimant was not directed by the employer as to where she must park her vehicle and conceded the employee entrance was inside the mall and she had not yet entered the mall’s entrance which was also used by the general public. This win was a direct result of Mr. Duque’s aggressive cross-examination that brought to light the key facts necessary to support disallowance of the claim.