Representative Litigation / Case Record
Larry Pope v. City of Chicago
Trial counsel record in a City of Chicago workers' compensation claim involving alleged jackhammer trauma, carotid artery dissection, stroke, and permanent vision loss.
- Forum
- Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission
- IWCC No.
- 07 WC 53735
- Commission Citation
- 2013 Ill. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 586; 13 IWCC 517
- Decision Date
- May 10, 2013
- Client
- City of Chicago
- Maimonis's Role
- Lead Trial Counsel
The Dispute
The Claim
The claimant alleged that his work with a hydraulic jackhammer, together with an asserted incident in which a jackhammer struck his neck or head, caused a carotid artery dissection, thromboembolic stroke, central retinal artery occlusion, and permanent loss of vision in the left eye.
The arbitrator found a compensable accident and causal relationship and awarded benefits based on permanent loss of vision.
The Record
Trial Counsel's Work
Maimonis personally developed the evidentiary record, conducted the depositions, prepared the witnesses, and tried the case at arbitration.
The defense record addressed:
- The claimant's actual frequency and duration of jackhammer use
- Daily work reports from June through September 2007
- Foreman testimony concerning work assignments and the maximum time a laborer would use the equipment
- The lack of a contemporaneous report of the alleged jackhammer incident
- Differing accident dates and histories
- Symptoms documented before and after the alleged event
- Conflicting smoking and substance-use histories
- Weightlifting and other alternative risk evidence
- Competing neurological opinions
- Whether the medical opinions relied on an accurate work and accident history
The Result
Commission Result
The Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission reversed the arbitrator. It found that the claimant failed to prove an accident arising out of and in the course of employment and failed to prove causal relationship.
The Commission concluded that the work reports and foreman testimony rebutted the claimed repetitive exposure. It found the defense medical opinion more persuasive and determined that the claimant's supporting medical opinions relied on inaccurate histories.
The claim for compensation was denied. The result was later sustained through judicial review.
The Significance
Why the Matter Matters
The later result did not arise from a new factual record. Review proceeded on the evidence created at arbitration.
The matter demonstrates the trial work necessary to defend a catastrophic medical-causation claim:
- Obtain the operational records
- Test the claimed exposure against contemporaneous documents
- Prepare the supervisor with firsthand knowledge
- Identify inconsistencies in the accident and medical histories
- Develop the alternative-causation record
- Take the expert depositions
- Preserve the credibility and foundation issues for review
Scope of Work
Role Clarification
Maimonis's role was trial counsel. Later appellate briefing was handled by other counsel after she left the firm. The public significance of her work is the live evidentiary record she personally created, not a claim that she wrote or argued a later appeal.
Attorney advertising. The description is provided for information about prior experience. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.