John Kennedy recently argued that Claimant was not in the course and scope of employment for a injury that occurred at the Employer’s location and WON!!!

Claimant filed a Claim Petition alleging that he was injured in the course and scope of his employment when he was chest bumped by Employer’s General Counsel on the employer’s premises. The incident took place in the parking lot of the Employer’s business prior to a meeting that was scheduled at the Employer’s business. Claimant initially testified that he did not know why the meeting was being called. He later testified that he thought the owner of the company brought the General Counsel to the meeting to physically assault the Claimant. The WCJ ruled the Claimant was not injured in the course or scope of his employment. The WCJ noted that Claimant initially testified he did not know why the meeting was being called, but then changed his testimony. The WCJ also noted that the Claimant had filed a civil action complaint against the Employer, wherein the claimant alleged that the General Counsel chest bumped the claimant for personal reasons unrelated to Claimant’s employment. The WCJ ruled that the Claimant had failed to satisfy his burden of proving that he was injured in the course and scope of his employment. The Claim Petition was denied and dismissed.

Rob Elias recently argued that Claimant failed to undergo reasonable treatment (ACL surgery) and WON a suspension of benefits for his client!!!

In this case, the Claimant did not want to undergo an ACL reconstruction repair that was recommended by both the IME expert and Claimant’s original treating physician.  Instead, he wanted expensive stem cell treatment provided by a regenerative medicine expert who refused to accept insurance.   Both the IME expert and Claimant’s original treating  doctor warned that the 27 year old Claimant might end up being permanently disabled if he didn’t move forward with the surgery as soon as possible.   The WCJ agreed that the evidence showed that the Claimant refused reasonable medical treatment that has minimal risk and a high probability of increasing Claimant’s functional ability and facilitating his return to work.  The Suspension Petition was granted.