Keefe, Campbell & Associates - Winning Judgments
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 | Aviles v Work Force Joseph R Needham |
Petitioner alleged a witnessed fall resulting spinal and head contusions, broken bones in the foot and a host of medical
Petitioner demanded over $150,000 in settlement, and brought trial under Section 8(a) alleging ongoing disability and
necessary treatment and seeking Respondent’s liability for over $72,000.00 in past medical treatment, Respondent’s
liability for future treatment possibly to include surgical intervention and possible lifetime medication, over eights months
in accrued TTD, as well as ongoing TTD until released from care.
Trial award denied all of Petitioner’s accrued medical bills other than those already paid by Respondent, denied all
additional medical treatment sought, denied Petitioner’s claim for ongoing disability, denied the entirety of Petitioner’s
disputed TTD claim, and found Petitioner’s condition of permanency related to the work injury valued at half of Petitioner’
s PPD demand.
| Phipps v Nestlé --- IWCC CASE# 06 IWCC 0397 Shawn R Biery |
This disputed shoulder injury claim with exposure of approximately $63,000 was denied by the Arbitrator after aggressive
allegations. This testimony, along with inconsistent medical histories, allowed us to successfully deny the claim when four
medical professionals had provided causal connection opinions. The IWCC upheld the denial based upon our brief which
highlighted the inconsistencies in the testimony.
| Bautista v. Nestlé (3 Claims) Shawn R Biery |
The three claims involved disputed back, shoulder and foot injury claims with combined exposure of approximately
accepted, however ongoing TTD and medical benefits were disputed based upon arguments regarding work availability,
disputed restrictions and excessive treatment. After a settlement offer of $7,500 was rejected, the matters went to hearing
in consolidation. Based upon cross-examination of the Petitioner which revealed inadequate reporting and divergent
complaints, the initial two claims were denied by the Arbitrator. The third claim was awarded a total of $4,083.32 in
benefits, with excessive medical care expressly denied by the Arbitrator.
| Wolfe v Nestlé Shawn R Biery |
This claim involved a disputed back injury with surgery and permanent restrictions resulting in a request for open medical
cross examination of the lack of reporting, inconsistent histories and confirmation of abilities, the entire claim was denied.
| Baker v Nestlé Shawn R Biery |
This claim involved a disputed hernia aggravation injury with unpaid TTD and medical resulting in exposure of
potential other causes or aggravating factors, the entire claim was denied.
| Hinton v Furst Staffing Shawn R Biery |
This claim involved a disputed back injury with surgical recommendations, allegations of extensive unpaid TTD and
pre-trial before the Arbitrator hearing the matter, a settlement for the cost of defense totaling $3,287.24 was agreed.
| Reed v All Around Amusement Shawn R Biery |
This claim involved a disputed facial fracture and ankle fracture with medical and TTD for approximate exposure of
employment, the claim was successfully dismissed based upon arguments before the Arbitrator resulting in a
recommendation for agreed dismissal.
| Fisher v Nestlé Shawn R Biery |
This claim involved disputes regarding open medical and permanent total disability with exposure of approximately
determined via investigation, Petitioner’s PTD claim was denied and an award of $56,675.19 was achieved. Based upon
the recommendation for potential knee and hip replacement in the future, the matter was eventually settled for $90,000 to
include waiver of all medical and immediate retirement from Respondent.
| Sroka v Wendy’s --- 4 Claims Shawn R Biery |
This claim involved disputed alleged exposures to chemicals and injuries to the person as a whole with claimed
medical, notice, causation, and accident defenses resulted in two separate firms withdrawing rather then proceeding to
hearing and eventual dismissal of all claims.
| Ames v Dale Juergens, Inc Joseph R Needham |
Petitioner, a 60 year old truck driver, alleged a slip and fall injury not amenable to the Wal-Mart defense, resulting in
Petitioner. The trial award was $10,484.85. Petitioner’s appeal pends.
| Lopez v Thermal Dimensions, Inc Joseph R Needham |
Petitioner alleged an un-witnessed slip and fall injury, and claimed to have slipped on plastic on the floor of this plastics
experts for both parties. The claim was fully disputed and denied, and the matter was denied compensability at trial. $0
awarded.
| Tadlock v ABF Joseph R Needham |
Petitioner litigated an accepted lumbar injury and a disputed cervical claim, both alleged to be work related. The trial
Petitioner was denied benefits for the disputed cervical injury, upon a finding Petitioner failed to establish a work-related
event or cause of the cervical condition. $0 awarded on disputed cervical claim.
| Beach v ABF Joseph R Needham |
Petitioner filed two claims alleging both a distinct single-event trauma and a repetitive aggravation of a degenerative
alleging a work-related cervical condition. Benefits were denied due to Petitioner’s failure to establish a compensable
work event leading to injury. $0 awarded.
| Hooten v Freightliner Joseph R Needham |
Petitioner sought over $28,000.00 in accrued TTD and medical benefits, as well as the costs of recommended lumbar
Petitioner’s failure to establish a compensable work event leading to injury. $0 awarded.
| Gonzales v Farmington Foods Joseph R Needham |
Petitioner, a butcher of nearly 20 years, alleged injury to the non-dominant middle finger, hand, wrist and elbow resulting
Benefits were denied upon a finding Petitioner failed to establish a work-related injury resulting in his symptoms. Appeal
filed by Petitioner seeking a finding of accident for repetitive trauma affirmed the trial award. $0 awarded.
| Saavedra v Caraustar Joseph R Needham |
Petitioner alleges a thigh lipoma and lumbar strain as a result of falling into a machine while working. The settlement
$1,780.80 were awarded to address Petitioner’s established thigh contusion, while the lipoma and lumbar conditions were
deemed unrelated to the work generally or work injury specifically.
| O’Howell v Jewel Joseph R Needham |
Petitioner alleged separate work related shoulder and cervical conditions, representing accepted and disputed claims
$100,000.00. The trial award was for 30% of the accepted shoulder injury and nominal TTD for $25,510.25, and a $0
award for the disputed cervical claim.
| Kelso v Sharkey Transportation Joseph R Needham |
Petitioner, a 42 year old truck driver earning in excess of $100,000 annually, alleged permanent total disability as a result
of seven figures. Benefits denied on finding Petitioner was an Independent Contractor. $0 awarded.
| Carter v Rush University Medical Center James F Egan |
This disputed contact dermatitis claim with exposure in which Petitioner made claim for $52,698.75 in permanency was
inconsistencies in medical history, reporting and accident allegations. This testimony and evidence, along with
inconsistent medical histories, allowed us to successfully deny the claim when the Arbitrator found Petitioner had not
proved by a preponderance of the credible evidence that his dermatitis was caused by exposure to new work uniforms
supplied by the Respondent.
| Watkins v. Nestlé James F Egan |
This claim was before Commissioner Basurto on review after Respondent accepted an award after trial on an alleged
balance weekly. Petitioner objected to this form of payment and filed a motion with the IWCC for “Enforcement of Award”.
We successfully argued under Section 8(e) of the Act, pursuant to the precedent in National Manufacturing vIC, 331 Ill.
App.3d 1045, 780 N.E.2d 703 (2002), that permanent partial disability benefits do not become realized until Petitioner’s
period of temporary total disability has stabilized and Petitioner reaches a point of Maximum medical improvement.
Petitioner’s motion was denied by a unanimous panel.
| Murowicka v. RUMC (3 cases) James F Egan |
This case illustrates a “good result” as compared to a clear-cut “winner/zero award.” Petitioner was a 49-year-old physical
recommended; Petitioner was also placed on permanent light-duty work restrictions. We successfully defended against 8
(d)(1) wage differential award which would have exceeded $400,000.00 by demonstrating available work within Petitioner’
s restrictions. Final arbitration award was only 15% person-as-a-whole.
| Tribble v. Nestlé James F Egan |
A 56-year-old male who suffered fatal heart attack that was allegedly brought about by work-related stress. Case had
awarded death benefits even though Petitioner’s heart was 90% occluded. However, based upon strong scientific
evidence we were able to develop viable defenses that allowed for final settlement of $11,000.00—this was undoubtedly
a victory, especially considering the minimum death benefit exposure was $512,850.00.
| Tibbs v. Westaff John P Campbell |
35-year-old laborer who alleged bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome due to repetitive duties. We successfully transferred
CTS. However, we were able to establish Petitioner’s limited employment time with Westaff was not sufficient to aggravate
or cause her injury.
| May v. BorgWarner John P Campbell |
45-year-old machine operator who alleged three separate injuries to her knee requiring two surgeries. Successfully
sabotaged her recovery by not following her physicians orders.
| Noack v. Evanston Northwestern Hospital John P Campbell |
35-year-old nurse who injured his right shoulder when he slipped on ice in the hospital parking lot; reconstructive surgery
common to the general public—avoided approximately $75,000.00 in PPD, TTD and medical exposure.
| Ostiguin v. Chicago Contract Cleaners John P Campbell |
39-year-old janitor who suffered an undisputed injury to his lower back while maneuvering an escalator vacuum;
sought continued lost time benefits and additional surgery. We successfully defended against 56 weeks of TTD and open
8(a) rights.
| Summers v. RUMC John P Campbell |
53-year-old patient care technician who alleged a low back injury lifting patient; claim was disputed based upon a
compensable accident and denied Petitioner’s proposed findings of 20% MAW, 98-1/7 weeks of TTD, and $5,524.25 in
medical—a total of $61,265.03.
| Spilker v IPC Joseph R Needham |
Petitioner forced trial under Section 19(b), and was awarded total knee replacement surgery a half-year of past TTD
total knee arthroscopy. Respondent’s Section 12 evidence and surveillance evidence were ignored by the Arbitrator in
awarding Petitioner’s benefits. Citing Respondent’s Section 12 and surveillance evidence, on appeal the Commission
reversed the award of total knee replacement and reduced TTD to 8 weeks, finding Petitioner deceived her doctor and
the Commission regarding the severity of injury and need for treatment. Total savings yet to be determined due to 19(b)
status of the case, but exceed $50,000.00 to date based on the trial award reversal.
