Winning Results

Lois Law Firm was able to procure a disallowance of an alleged COVID-19 workplace exposure claim at the Board Panel level after the claim was established by the Law Judge at the trial level. Lois attorney, Connor Wetherington, achieved this result through effective cross-examination of the claimant and presentation of evidence to refute and discredit the purported timeline of contracture.

Lois Law Firm was recently able to procure a disallowance from on controverted claim for the lumbar spine. The claimant alleged an injury to his lumbar spine on the day after returning from work a left shoulder injury. He stated that he had pain in the right hip and right leg and problems sleeping. He reported to the employer that he felt sore after returning to work and that it worsened as he continued to work over the next few weeks. He first sought treatment a few weeks later, denying any specific injury or incident.

Lois Law Firm was recently able to procure a disallowance from the Law Judge even after accepting the claim without liability because of the flaws we highlighted in the treating doctor’s awareness of a prior surgery. The claimant reported a shoulder injury occurring in October 2020 while trying to remove stuck blankets from a washing machine at work, causing a crack in the bone to the shoulder.

LOIS successfully secured its WCL Section 32 Agreement on appeal after a litigious battle against a rogue Claimant. The Claimant alleged that she suffered repetitive injuries to both wrists, shoulders, the neck, and the right knee as a result of carrying computer equipment. The Carrier and the Claimant agreed to a nominal WCL Section 32 Agreement so as to close the case before the compensability trial. Following the settlement hearing, the Claimant (without informing her counsel) wrote a letter to the Board, requesting for clarification as it related to the outstanding medical bills, despite the Agreement patently outlining how these bills would be resolved. The Claimant then indicated her intention to withdraw about four weeks, 14 days after the close of the 10-day waiting period.

The claimant, a “Stockman” employed by a supermarket, was injured when he was struck by a motor vehicle while crossing a street. As a result, the claimant alleged multiple serious injuries including a skull fracture. Our client advised that the claimant had left for lunch and never returned. We recommended denying the case on the basis that the accident did not arise out of the course the claimant’s employment, as accidents occurring on lunch breaks are generally not compensable. In other words, the “coming and going” rule would apply.