A key lesson I’ve learned in my years as an attorney is never to underestimate the importance of veracity. As the late Edward Murrow noted, “To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful.” Never has this sentiment been so relevant to me as it was in my firm’s most recent workers compensation victory.
My client — the employee — worked as a truck driver for the employer truck company and sustained a shoulder injury on February 25, 2014 while unloading ten gallon buckets of hydraulic fluid. The injury worsened the next day when the employee helped to unload buckets of weed killer and grass seed. The employee immediately reported the injury to his dispatcher. He then consulted an orthopedic physician for the injury, who informed him he needed an adjuster approval and claim number for treatment given that the injury was work related. The employee reported the injury to the HR manager around March 10, but his claim was denied, resulting in a workers compensation lawsuit.
Ultimately, my client achieved victory over his employer, receiving both coverage for medical treatment and attorney’s fees. In the award judgment, the administrative law judge specifically noted my client’s credibility: “In this case where testimony of the dispatcher, the HR manager and the company manager differed at times wildly and where charges of deceit and dishonesty were frequent, I found the Employee to be credible.” The judge further pointed out the unreliability of the employer’s current and former employees, describing their testimony as “disturbing” and failing to find any of them “consistently credible.”
The employer’s untrustworthy defense was particularly striking in this case. Among the employer’s defenses were that the employee did not report the injury within the designated time limit of 30 days, the delivery manifest did not include the buckets of hydraulic fluid that the employee claimed initiated the injury, and that the employee’s injury was not work related. In presenting these defenses, the employer’s testimony was often inconsistent with other testimony and at times unsupported by the evidence.
Regarding timeliness, the employer’s former HR director confirmed the employee’s testimony that the injury was reported to HR on March 10. Her testimony contradicted the dispatcher’s testimony that the meeting occurred on or after April 7 (which would have made the employee’s claim untimely). She also revealed that management directed her to deny the claim and submit false information to the insurer. Additionally, the former HR director testified that management instructed her to dispute both the items listed on the manifest and that the employee helped unload the truck. Management denied these assertions.
Regarding the manifest, management claimed there were no listings for buckets of hydraulic fluid. But management failed to produce the truck manifest to support this position or testify as to the existence of (or lack of) such buckets — omissions that the judge found to be “odd.” Interestingly, management never denied that the truck contained buckets of weed killer and grass seed — the items that exacerbated the employee’s initial injury.
Finally, the dispatcher claimed that when discussing the shoulder injury, the employee indicated his shoulder was sore from sleeping on it incorrectly. This testimony, however, was contradicted by the medical opinions. One physician specifically indicated the employee’s injury “would not come from merely sleeping on one’s shoulder in the wrong position,” while another physician stated “I believe these problems are indeed work related . . . .” Moreover, the employee’s effort to seek medical attention was denied without proper documentation because it was work related.
In weighing the testimony, the judge deemed my client credible. She found that he incurred the shoulder injury on the job and reported it promptly, granting his request for medical treatment. The judge also determined that the defense was unreasonable and granted an uncommon award of attorneys fees.
Although I’ve been practicing law for more than 15 years, I am always amazed when employers try to skirt their workers compensation obligations through deceit. I pride myself in handling my cases with integrity and fighting for clients with true workplace-related injuries. This case was a refreshing reminder to me of the importance of the most basic cornerstone of all of my legal arguments: honesty.