Winning Results

The Claimant alleged he sustained an elbow injury while covering another employee months prior to providing notice to his Employer. Initially, we interpreted the claim filed as an acute injury since the Claimant specified a period of time he alleged injury. At the Pre-Hearing Conference, it was clear that opposing counsel wanted the claim to be reviewed as an occupational disease, suggesting that through repetitive use of his work duties, the Claimant injured his elbow. Opposing counsel knew that if the claim were interpreted as a specific injury, there would be evident notice issues given the late reporting. To counter opposing counsel’s position, LOIS attorney Tomer Lehr took a holistic approach and defended the claim from both an occupational disease and specific injury perspectives. Accordingly, at trial, the Claimant was asked questions meant to demonstrate that he allegedly sustained an injury on a specific day at work yet failed to bring attention to the Employer until many months after the fact.

The claimant alleges that she was injured on January 3, 2022, wherein she was picking up multiple trays at once and the trays fell on her right hand. This claim was established to the right hand/wrist, right middle finger and right ring finger. The claimant’s treating doctor filed a permanency report dated January 3, 2023 in which he diagnosed the claimant with a 18.75% SLU of the right wrist, a 24% SLU of the right ring finger, and a 34% SLU of the right middle finger. Total exposure value if all SLUs were applied would be $34,887.53. LOIS attorney Natalia Verde obtained an IME on April 11, 2023 and the independent examiner diagnosed the claimant with a 0% SLU based on the full range of motion in the right wrist and 3rd and 4th digits in the right hand.

A LOIS Litigation team comprised of Partner Christian Sison and Paralegal Brianna Nicolas obtained a reclassification win for a Hotel client earlier this year. In L.Q. v W.N.Y.T.S., the claimant had been found to have sustained a permanent total disability, entitling her to lifetime indemnity benefits. The Hotel transferred the case for LOIS to provide a different approach, which resulted in using surveillance to argue that the claimant was no longer suffering from the permanent total disability.

LOIS obtains a no attachment to the labor market finding after arguing the claimant failed to conduct a timely, diligent, or persistent work search. The claimant was classified as having a permanent partial disability but was deemed unattached to the labor market and was directed to produce evidence of a timely, diligent, and persistent work search.

LOIS Attorney Kristine Rosales successfully defended a WCL 114-a fraud claim against a claimant who failed to disclose work activity with a concurrent employer, resulting in the WCB imposing both the mandatory and discretionary penalties, barring the claimant from receiving any future indemnity benefits.

The claimant, was injured on June 18, 2021, when he was stacking and restacking the bread boxes and he felt a pop in his left shoulder. The claimant returned to work, full duty, for the same employer on August 23, 2021.

At a hearing on January 30, 2023 the claim was established to the left shoulder with an AWW of $1,043.49. LOIS attorney Adam Lowenstein questioned the claimant about prior injuries. The claimant disclosed a February 19, 2007 injury to the shoulder, but stated that another prior September 23, 2013 accident involved the left knee only. Both accidents occurred in Pennsylvania. The claimant was directed to provide a HIPAA within 30 days. Both sides were directed to produce permanency reports within 75 days and the case was marked no further action.

LOIS attorney Alexa Cintron was successful in arguing for a disallowance of a 2022 claim, where the claimant alleged he sustained injuries to his back, left hip and tailbone. However, the Claimant failed to provide proper notice to his employer pursuant to Section 18 of the Worker’s Compensation Law. Attorney Cintron was able to obtain favorable testimony from both the Claimant and employer witness, which led the Law Judge to disallow the claim, stating that the Claimant’s inconsistent testimony did not satisfy the element of notice.