LOIS attorney Meisha Powell succeeds in persuading the workers’ compensation Law Judge that the Claimant formulated an accident on a large construction site, by casting doubt in the claimant’s version of the events. Immediately after the case was referred to attorney Powell, witnesses were contacted so that relevant information could be gathered regarding the claimant, and this alleged accident. Attorney Powell and her team was able to determine that the claimant did not suffer a work-related accident on the construction jobsite that was covered by the Carrier’s (OCIP) site specific policy. The key witness was the very same individual that the claimant listed on his C-3 claim form that he alleged witnessed the accident. Unbeknownst to the claimant, that witness would later testify during trial that he was not a witness to any accident involving the claimant. The employer also provided pay statements showing that the claimant continued to work well after the alleged date of loss, but the claimant reported to his medical providers and on his C-3 form that he stopped working on the date of the alleged accident and had not returned. Attorney Powell utilized all the information to cast major doubt in the claimant’s credibility by presenting evidence to rebut the claimant’s testimony at trial. Over this grueling 2-hour trial, the claimant testified that he fell off of a ladder, 6-7 feet off the ground, he was rushed to the ER, and released the next day. He testified that he sustained injuries to his neck, back, both shoulders, right elbow, and right arm. His testimony was filled with numerous inconsistencies and Powell was able to highlight all those inconsistencies which helped in forming the basis for this disallowance. She argued that based on many different factors, the claimant had not met his burden for a compensable claim. Powell used the claimant’s pay statements that was produced to argue that it was unclear if the claimant even worked at the covered jobsite because the statements was missing up to two weeks of pay before the accident. The claimant could not justify why he did not have proof of wages right before the alleged accident. In addition, the proof of claimant’s wages subsequent to the accident produced by the Employer also cast doubt in claimant’s testimony that he was so injured that he could not continue to work following the alleged accident. Under oath the claimant also denied having any family members working at the jobsite with him and the employer witness rebutted that testimony and testified that the claimant worked at the jobsite with his brother. This simple fact also assisted in chipping away at the claimant’s credibility and resulted in the disallowance of this claim.
On a related matter, this claimant has been tied to two other claimants who have also filed false workers’ compensation claims, also alleging a fall from a height/ladder on this large construction jobsite. There is no record that these two individuals working at the jobsite at any time or for any of the contractors on the alleged date of loss. Most notably, both claimants provided proof of their employer-employee relationship by producing the same and identical hard hat that has been traced back to the claimant in the first action. A request for disallowance will also be made for these two claims and attorney Powell is looking forward to securing disallowances for these fraudulent claims.