A workman’s compensation lawyer knows how an injured worker may need to borrow money or have help from family during their injury. In the following case, an employer tried to use these sources of money to wrongly stop benefits payments… and the employee’s workman’s compensation lawyer successfully stopped the employer from misinterpreting these deposits into the employee’s savings account. The hearing officer in the case agreed with the workers compensation lawyer, and made a finding that the injured worker was entitled to supplemental income benefits (or SIB’s) even though he did have some additional money (loans from his parents), and also a little self-employment. The insurance company appealed this decision, claiming to have gotten evidence to prove their argument… “after” the hearing was over, stressed the workers compensation lawyer. The injured employee’s workers compensation lawyer then successfully defeated the insurer’s arguments.
Workers Compensation Lawyer Defended Right To Part-Time Self-Employment
The workers compensation lawyer answered the insurer, saying the hearing officer correctly decided the injured worker was entitled to SIBs. The insurer’s real argument, the workers’ compensation attorney pointed out, was that the injured worker “could have worked more,” and claimed he didn’t make a good faith effort to get work, based on these “extra” deposits. But the workers compensation lawyer stressed very detailed medical findings of a serious disability.
Besides, the workers compensation lawyer noted how the hearing officer was the most important judge of the evidence. The hearing officer heard all the evidence from the workers’ compensation lawyer and from the employee himself, as he told the workers’ compensation lawyer about the injury and his job search. As the trier of fact, the hearing officer clearly agreed with the workers’ compensation lawyer about the strength of the medical evidence. Based on evidence presented by the workers’ compensation lawyer, the hearing officer reasonably decided the injured worker (a) was not required to get additional employment, once the workers’ compensation lawyer proved employment at a part-time job and (b) was being self-employed, consistent with his ability to work.
Workman’s Compensation Lawyer: A Serious Injury With Lasting Effects
The insurance company also argued the injured worker’s underemployment during the qualifying period wasn’t caused by his impairment. The workman’s compensation attorney noted the injured worker’s underemployment was also a direct result of the impairment. This was backed up by evidence from the workers comp lawyer that this injured employee had a very serious injury, with lasting effects, and just “could not reasonably do the type of work he’d done right before his injury.” In this case, the workers comp lawyer showed that the injured worker’s injury resulted in a permanent impairment. The employer didn’t prove (or disprove) anything specific about the extent of the injury, the workers comp lawyer observed, but only suggested “possibilities.”
Employer Was Stopped From Use Of “Confusing” Evidence By Workman’s Compensation Lawyer
For example, the workman’s compensation attorney said the insurance company emphasized “evidence” obtained after the hearing. Yet the insurance company said this came from a deposition taken three days before the hearing. At that time, the workers comp lawyer pressed, it learned that the injured worker had a personal bank account for depositing wages. The insurance company subpoenaed copies of the injured worker’s deposit slips, and got the records after the hearing from the workers compensation attorney. The insurance company argued that the deposit slips “proved” that the injured worker earned more than 80% of his pre-injury wages. But the workers comp lawyer stressed how the insurer should have worked harder to prove this argument before the hearing.
Specifically, the workers’ compensation attorney pointed out that documents submitted for the first time (on appeal) are generally not accepted… unless they are newly discovered evidence, noted the workman’s compensation attorney. The evidence offered by the insurance company wasn’t newly discovered evidence, proved the workers comp lawyer. The injured worker testified to his workman’s comp lawyer that the deposits included wages from his self-employment and “money I borrowed from my mother.” The evidence didn’t, proved the workers comp lawyer, show how much (if any, noted the workers comp lawyer) was deposited from the injured worker’s wages versus how much was from borrowing. Though the insurance company had known about the evidence, it made no request to get the evidence, emphasized the workers comp lawyer. Nor, concluded the workers comp lawyer, did the insurance company ask for the hearing record to stay open for evidence once it was received… which, the workers comp lawyer stressed, they had a right to have done. The Appeals Panel agreed with the workers comp lawyer and “refused” to consider the ‘evidence’ attached to the insurance company’s appeal. The workers comp lawyer had completely defended the worker’s award. Bilanz Hattingen