Cincinnati Reds

Coca-Cola Company

Federal Express Corporation

Formica Group, N.A.

Gannett Company, Inc.

General Electric Company

Home Depot

Honda of America

J.P. Morgan

Kenworth Truck Company

 Meijer, Inc.

OneSource

Speedway, LLC

Staffmark

Sysco Corporation

The Kroger Co.

The Ohio State University

The Procter & Gamble Company

Waste Management

Wendy’s International

Claims

Claims investigation

Length-of-disability issues

Return-to-work / Vocational issues

Response to workplace hazards

Safety Violations Claims

Defense

Administrative hearings

Arbitration / Mediation

Bureau of Workers’ Compensation adjudications

Court Appeals

Preventative

Best practices for safety standards, bureau investigations

and violations

Onsite employer training

Tip sheets on state statutes

Local Know-How and a Century of Claims Counseling Experience

• Actively involved with legislators and agencies in proposed legislation and regulations
• Efficient in covering large geographic areas with experienced attorneys
• Comprehensive workers’ compensation coverage throughout Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia
• Established processes to handle diverse claim types:
• State-funded employers
• Self-insured employers

The Cincinnati Reds employ a largely contract-based workforce that travels regularly as part of the job. We provide strategies and advice to help the organization maintain a consistent and cost effective approach to handling workers’ compensation with an eye toward mitigating risk. Our case, claims and scenario analysis, settlement valuation and draft agreements, network of contacts, working relationships and industry leaders provides a competitive advantage in jurisdictions nationwide.

We successfully challenged the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation decision to hold our client responsible for allegedly inheriting workers’ compensation premiums owed by our client’s predecessor in interest. We demonstrated that because the amounts allegedly due from the predecessor were related to the retrospective rating program, it was illegal for the BWC to order that our client was responsible for this plan, which was agreed to by our predecessor. We used a novel approach to argue that the retrospective rating program was an exception to the rule that allows the BWC to charge successor employers with the premiums of its predecessors.

The full Industrial Commission found that a positive drug test, which was a violation of a written-work rule, made the claimant ineligible for temporary total compensation. The Industrial Commission reached this conclusion despite the fact that the work rule violation occurred prior to the work injury.

We successfully challenged the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation decision to hold our client responsible for allegedly inheriting workers’ compensation premiums owed by our client’s predecessor in interest. We demonstrated that because the amounts allegedly due from the predecessor were related to the retrospective rating program, it was illegal for the BWC to order that our client was responsible for this plan, which was agreed to by our predecessor. We used a novel approach to argue that the retrospective rating program was an exception to the rule that allows the BWC to charge successor employers with the premiums of its predecessors.

The court agreed with our position that the claimant’s doctor was treating her for conditions not related to the industrial injury. We were able to prove through documentation that the claimant was being treated for conditions not related to her claim. The case saved money for our client and presently serves as legal precedent allowing employers to look beyond the disability forms completed by doctors to determine if, in fact, that disability is related to the industrial injury.

We successfully defended an order of the Industrial Commission which denied temporary total compensation to a claimant who had been fired due to his failure to comply with the “no call, no show” policy, despite the claimant’s allegations that his condition significantly worsened following his termination. We convinced the Ohio Supreme Court not to extend the ability of claimants, who were terminated as the result of a clear violation of company rules, to obtain temporary total compensation even though the claimant’s medical condition had worsened following the termination. This resulted in a significant cost savings to our client.

In a complex matter, we defend Building Crafts on both claims. We began by thoroughly investigating the injury, incident report, company policies and Plaintiff’s medical records. We retained an independent doctor to conduct a medical exam when the Plaintiff attempted to amend his workers’ compensation claim to include a lower back injury. Upon review, the Industrial Commission of Ohio denied the attempt to add the low back conditions to the claim. In addition, we negotiated a favorable settlement for the VSSR application.  Our pretrial process management for the workers’ compensation claim eliminated our client’s exposure to potential WC premium increases.