Emotional injury claim defeated at trial.
Mr. Hansen recently successfully defended a public entity in an emotional injury/good-faith personnel action claim. The applicant was a mental health professional who alleged psychiatric injury over a period of years. She offered testimony from 10 witnesses and offered close to 250 documentary exhibits. Our defense was a multifaceted: that the applicant did not suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder, that the alleged acts did not occur as claimed and that the actions of the employer constituted a nondiscriminatory lawful good-faith personnel action. Following a multiple day trial, the WCJ issued a "take-nothing", finding that the applicant was not a credible witness and that the actions of the employer that she complained to be injurious were in fact a good-faith personnel action. The applicant's petition for reconsideration was denied.
Attorney-directed investigation disproves claim
In another claim involving both emotional and physical injuries, the claimant alleged that she had been raped by a coworker. We directed an exhaustive investigation and proved that the sexual act, if it occurred, was consensual. As a result of our investigation, the workers compensation claims, the EEOC claim and the DFEH claim were settled for nuisance value.
Early intervention by defense counsel protects employer from paying medical treatment under Lab C § 5402(c).
The employee, a lift operator for a ski resort presented at the first-aid room, claiming that he had been struck in the side of his chest by a lift chair while grooming a ramp. Another lift operator backed up his story. When the employee was examined by an on duty paramedic, a chest contusion was noted and internal injuries were suspected. A decision was made to immediately transport the employee to a hospital in the closest metropolitan area. The transportation consisted of taking him from the resort in a ground ambulance to a rendezvous with an air evacuation helicopter for transfer to a trauma center. The risk manager contacted our office within minutes of the injury for guidance. Our attorney, himself a veteran ski patrolman, contacted the resort and coordinated an early investigation with the resort’s ski patrol director. This investigation, which included multiple interviews of staff and other witnesses and an inspection of the incident scene, revealed that the injury did not occur as claimed by the employee but rather occurred when he was unsuccessfully attempting to perform an aerial maneuver on his snowboard, striking his left chest on the edge of the board when he landed. During investigation the corroborating "witness" recanted his story when he realized that he was participating in a fraudulent claim. As a result of the successful investigation, the claim was denied as a non-industrial injury before the helicopter landed. The employee did not pursue his claim further. The employer paid nothing.
$14,000 Wage and Hour claim defeated.
Employee, who claimed to be an experienced salesman, was hired to do outside sales with a base salary and commission bonuses. However, after 2 months without a sale, he suddenly resigned without notice. When his claim for unemployment benefits were denied, the angered employee then made a wage claim with the Labor Commissioner for $14,000 in wages and penalties, contending unpaid overtime and meal period violations. The Labor Commissioner found sufficient evidence to support the claim and filed a formal complaint. Unfortunately, even though the claim was false, the employer did not have had sufficient documentation in the way of time records to disprove the allegations. The employee submitted a handwritten calendar purporting to show the hours worked. At trial, a thorough cross-examination of the claimant by Mr. LeClerc discredited the fraudulent calendar, resulting in a ruling favorable to the employer.
Advance planning blunts discrimination claim.
Our attorney worked carefully with the HR department of a regional retail chain to develop leave policies that complied with applicable state and federal leave and disability statutes. Following implementation of the policy, an employee suffered an industrial injury and was unable to return to work. Carefully following its new policy, the employer ultimately terminated the injured worker’s employment upon exhaustion of her leave. Shortly thereafter the employer received a letter from the employee’s attorney threatening a discrimination claim if the employee was not immediately reinstated. After we carefully explained the policy and its legal basis to plaintiff’s attorney, he decided against filing the threatened claim, saving the employer the unnecessary costs of defense.
|