Is it strategic to switch to a trial lawyer right before a 19(b) hearing for a denied WC claim?:
Illinois WC case against a global logistics corporation and their TPA.
I developed severe cumulative trauma in both feet due to forced job deviation (heavy standing stations) within my first month of hire, culminating in a medical collapse during a recent shift. My doctors support my active restrictions.
The TPA denied the claim citing a "pre-existing condition" and withheld TTD. A 19(b) petition was filed, and the trial is this month. Parallel to this, I have an active federal retaliation case (EEOC draft charge ready) because the company retaliated by canceling my medical accommodations and punitively altering my employment status due to my injury.
My dilemma: Current counsel has surrendered on the foot injury, claiming the defense is too hard to beat. He wants to freeze the WC foot claim for 1-2 years and focus on minor body parts, completely ignoring the strategic leverage of the ongoing EEOC retaliation action.
Is it wise to replace him now with a trial-ready litigator to fight for my feet at the upcoming 19(b) hearing, or is this interconnected strategy too risky?
Stephen’s answer:
You can always change lawyers but it’s almost always a bad idea. The timing here makes it a really terrible idea.
You need someone who is honest with you about what the evidence will show. Not what you think happened. Not what’s fair. What will actually occur at trial. Seems like you have one already.
How much was treated wrong 3 dir: I'm traumatized
Stephen’s answer: No idea what happened to you, why, when. Please provide some details, dates, context and we can try to answer your question.
Can I file a lawsuit against America’s best contacts and glasses for not identifying a retinal tear?: I went to Americas best for an exam, where I was told there is nothing wrong with my vision. Same day, saw a retinal specialist that diagnosed me with a retinal tear. Had to get laser that next week to fix it.
Stephen’s answer:
You do not have a case.
Here's why.
Let's assume the America's Best opthalmologist screwed up and failed to diagnose your retinal tear. And we don't know that. We don't even know if they conducted a full exam. But let's assume that.
You had the surgery and suffered no ill effects. In other words, EVEN IF there was a failure to diagnose your tear, there was no way you were put in a worse situation. If they had diagnosed it, you'd have gotten the same surgery.
So in other words, step one is drop in normal standard of care and step two is some permanent or serious harm as a result of that deviation.
The classic case is failure to diagnose cancer. The doctor says "you're fine" and then 6 months later you are diagnosed with stage 4 cancer and later die. That's a clear case where the deviation from the normally careful doctor's standard of care causes you to be in a worse situation than had you been diagnosed/treated in a timely manner.
Here you have nothing on these facts. No harm, no foul.
Please confirm this with a lawyer in private, who has the ability to review your medical records in concert with a medical expert, but it appears to be a no viable case situation.