As long as you are honest and prepared, the proceedings should go relatively smoothly.
FREE CONSULTATION

30 YEARS EXPERIENCE
OVER $100 MILLION COLLECTED
ONLY WORK COMP
I don't like insurance companies and only represent the injured. I am not a large advertising law firm that settles cheap to meet monthly quotas. We fight hard for every client. The compensation we obtain for the injured is both federal and state tax free. We never ask our clients for a penny as all cases are handled on a contingency fee.
James Hoffmann
314 361 4300
[email protected]
God bless, love and hugs
Jim
Fighting for the injured.
James Hoffmann
Your Missouri car accident and workers comp lawyer
314 361 4300
[email protected]
Proud to fight for the injured.
Law Office of James M Hoffmann
2001 S. Hanley suite 325
St. Louis, MO 63144
314 361 4300
[email protected]
James Hoffmann
St. Louis, Mo work comp and car accident lawyer
314 361 4300
Law Office of James M Hoffmann
314 361 4300
[email protected]
Law Office of James M Hoffmann
2001 S. Hanley, suite 325
St. Louis, MO 63144
314 361 4300
[email protected]
Your Missouri car accident and workers compensation attorney
Glad to help. All cases on a contingency fee which means we will never ask a client for a penny.
Law Office of James M Hoffmann
James Hoffmann
Remy Hoffmann
Missouri personal injury attorneys
314 361 4300
[email protected]
The LIRC in Nouraie v. MO. Baptist Medical Center et al, Injury No.: 10-111746, March 13, 2013, sanctioned the employer for refusing medical care in connection with a repetitive use claim. The Employer obtained an expert long after the wrongful denial of benefits. This did not justify the prior wrongful denial. The LIRC explained:
“In any event, whether an employer has sent a worker for a medical examination prior to denying a claim is a factor for our consideration in determining whether an employer had reasonable grounds for denying a claim.”
The LIRC in Nouraie also explained:
“The courts have instructed us we are only to award such costs “where the issue is clear and the offense egregious.” Landman v. Ice Cream Specialties, Inc., 107 S.W.3d 240, 250-251 (Mo. 2003). We think it is clear that employers have an obligation to investigate the circumstances giving rise to alleged work injuries before denying benefits. And where the worker is available to discuss the injury, we think any reasonable employer conducting an investigation designed to determine whether an injury is work-related would discuss the alleged injury with the worker. In the instant case, Ms. Bequette, as employer's agent, denied evaluation, treatment and benefits to employee without even discussing employee's alleged back condition with employee. We think employer's act of denying workers' compensation benefits to employee before even discussing the alleged injury with employee constituted an egregious offense. Based upon the forgoing, we find employer defended this claim at the outset without reasonable ground.”
Merry Christmas.
James Hoffmann, Missouri work comp and auto accident attorney
314 361 4300
[email protected]
Claimant, a full-time carpenter for Employer, developed low back pain in September of 2017 making cabinets and displays for the Employer. Claimant’s job is physically demanding. Cabinets and displays can range from 60 to 500 lbs. Claimant job duties include lifting displays weighing up to 500 hundred pounds during the assembly process. Carts, each with 100 lbs of materials, are brought to Claimant who must lift the materials from each cart and assemble same. In October 2017, Claimant’s job duties caused his low back soreness to become severe pain with numbness down his right leg. At the final hearing, the Employer/Insurer produced no evidence of non-work activities that could have caused, or did cause, Claimant’s low back pain.
When Claimant’s low back pain became severe in Oct. 2017, he sought treatment with a chiropractor, Dr. Lynch, on 10/17/20217. Claimant then, on 10/23/2017, reported to Employer a repetitive use work injury to his low back. He went sent to Concentra by the Employer but left due to delays in providing immediate treatment as he had severe pain and radiculopathy. He went immediately to an urgent care and returned to work with a light duty slip for 6 weeks for which the Employer complied.
Despite asking the Employer for additional treatment during the next few months, none was offered. He kept the Employer informed of the treatment he was receiving on his own. IN December 2017, Claimant contacted attorney James Hoffmann who instructed Claimant to hand deliver a letter to the Employer making a written demand for treatment. Claimant delivered the letter in December 2017. At the hearing, Employer presented no evidence that it disputed the contents of the letter.
Immediately after receiving the letter, the Employer contacted the Insurer which then sent medical authorizations to Claimant who signed and immediately returned same to the Insurer. The Insurer then obtained a statement from Claimant in Dec. 2017 where Claimant informed the adjuster of a repetitive use low back injury at work and need for treatment.
After 6 weeks of light duty, Employer requested another light duty slip which Claimant provided.
Claimant continued to work light duty until Feb. 15, 2018, when Employer informed Claimant there was no more light duty and sent Claimant home. In the meantime, neither the Employer nor the Insurer offered treatment. The Employer’s attorney was aware of Claimant’s treatment as he was sending copies of Claimant’s medical records to Claimant’s attorney received via the authorizations signed by Claimant.
In Feb. 2018, Claimant’s attorney obtained a medical report from Dr. Armond Levy who related lumbar disc herniations and the necessity of surgery to Claimant’s work for Employer. Several demands were sent IN Feb. 2018 to the Employer for the surgery recommended by Dr. Levy and for TTD. At the hearing, Employer presented no evidence of any response to the demands for treatment and TTD made by Claimant’s attorney in February 2018.
Claimant then underwent 2 surgeries on his own for his low back, the first being in March 2018 and the second in August 2018. During that time, no TTD or treatment was offered. When Claimant returned to work in November 2018, after recovering from the second surgery, he was informed by the Employer that he was fired.
The Employer eventually sent Claimant to a physician, Dr. Bernardi, in November 2018, who is of the opinion that a person cannot suffer a repetitive use herniated disc. It is his opinion that herniated discs can only acute, and that any degenerative changes in the low back are genetic and cannot be caused by repetitive use occupations. In other words, Employer sent Claimant to a doctor who disagrees with Missouri law which specifically recognizes and accepts repetitive use injuries. Claimant had zero chance of a favorable opinion from Dr. Bernardi
This is the lawyer you want to hire! Just read the reviews. It is all true. Incredible! He will get you every dollar of lost wages, get you every ounce of medical treatment, and get you the highest possible award from the Division of Workers Compensation.
Law Office of James M. Hoffmann
2001 S. Hanley, suite 325
St. Louis, MO 63144
314 361 4300
[email protected]
Your Missouri workers comp and car accident attorney.
So, why did the doctor shave areas in the knee that were not symptomatic? Look at the bill: a meniscus surgery is onl $3000; but for every other area he "cleaned up", he gets $3000 for each area.
Law Office of James Hoffmann
314 361 4300
[email protected]
Your Missouri workers comp and car accident lawyer
James Hoffmann
314 361 4300
[email protected]
Law Office of James Hoffmann
314 361 4300
[email protected]
James Hoffmann
attorney
St. Louis workers comp and car accident lawyer
314 361 4300
[email protected]
I have represented numerous first responders in Missouri workers comp and car accidents. Heavy ambulance doors have caused severe post concussion syndrome and TBI's. Lifting victims has caused herniated discs requiring cervical and lumbar fusion surgeries. Glad to help our hero's.
Law Office of James Hoffmann
2001 S. Hanley, Suite 325
St. Louis, MO 63144
314 361 4300
[email protected]
Law Office of James Hoffmann
St. Louis personal injury and work comp lawyer.
314 361 4300
[email protected]
Per Tillotson v. St. Joseph Med. Ctr., 347 S.W. 3d 511 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) to determine need for treatment, surgery, and treatment after surgery. Treatment need only be reasonably required to cure and relieve the effects of the injury. Id. Section 287.140.1 RSMo states in pertinent part that the Employer shall provide such medical as may “reasonably be required.
To be entitled to future medical care the employee must establish that there is a reasonable probability that he will need future medical care. Forshee v. Landmark Exc. & Equip., 165 S.W. 3d 533 (Mo.App. E.D. 2005) An [Employee] does not have to provide evidence of specific medical treatments or procedures which will be necessary in the future in order to receive an award of future medical care. See Chatmon v. St. Charles County Ambulance, 55 S.W.3d 451, 459 (Mo.App. E.D. 2001).
Employee has already satisfied the burden of proving a compensable injury. Here, defense's authorized Dr. Spears on 4/26/2010 opined "if she doesn't get improvement in her radicular pain, then the next step is going to be a microscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion to remove the foraminal stenosis." He went on to state the January 2010 incident was a "fall (that) aggravated significantly a pre-existing condition". This is enough under Tillotson, Forshee, and, Chatmon (supra) to award further treatment.
Please also see Maness v. City of De Soto, 421 S.W.3d 532 (Mo. App. 2014). The court rejects Employer's contention that the mere existence of degenerative disc disease in the cervical spine and neck symptoms prior to the work accident requires a determination that Claimant's injury is not compensable.
See also the following in support:
If the evidence establishes that an accident caused a
disability or aggravated a preexisting condition or infirmity of an employee,
which produces a condition that would not have resulted in a normal, healthy
individual, an award is authorized. Fogelsong v. Banquet Foods Corp. 526
S.W.2d 886 (Mo. App., K.C.D. 1975)
An aggravation of an existing infirmity caused by an accident or occupational
exposure arising out of and in the course of employment is compensable under
Chapter 287, RSMo, even if the particular accident (occupational injury) would
not have produced such result in a normal and healthy individual. Mashburn v.
Chevrolet-Kansas City Division, General Motors Corp., 397 S.W.2d 23 (Mo.
App., K.C.D. 1965)
Law Office of James M. Hoffmann
2001 S. Hanley
St. Louis, MO 63144
314 361 4300
[email protected]
James M Hoffmann, attorney
2001 S. Hanley, suite 325
St. Louis, MO 63144
314 361 4300
[email protected]
I see this all the time with neck injuries, low back injuries, disc herniations, rotator cuff tears, meniscus tears: doctors do surgery under workmans comp and then blame ongoing pain on a made up pre-existing condition.
James Hoffmann
Your Missouri workers comp and car accident attorney
314 361 4300
[email protected]
Law Office of James M. Hoffmann
St. Louis, MO car accident and workers compensation lawyer
314 361 4300
Glad to fight for the injured worker in Missouri.
Law Office of James M. Hoffmann
St. Louis, Missouri workers comp, car accident, injury attorney.
314 361 4300
[email protected]
These reviews are correct. This attorney is incredible. He knows workmans compensation, fights for denied treatment and wages, and gets your on the job injury rated by the best doctors. I will be using him from here on our great experience.
It does not take a large law firm to fight an insurance company. It takes a good lawyer. There's a reason why injured insurance adjusters and injured insurance doctors call me to represent them. They know I fight and will not back down.
Law Office of James M. Hoffmann
St. Louis, MO workers comp and auto accident attorney
314 361 4300
[email protected]
If the doctor says that you suffered a compensable injury by accident, then the legal standard for determining employer’s obligation to afford medical care under the Missouri workmans comp law requires the employer to provide treatment reasonably required to cure and relieve the effects of the injury. The prevailing factor standard no longer applies.
Further, it is immaterial that treatment may have been required because of the complication of a pre-existing condition or that treatment will benefit both the compensable injury and a pre-existing condition.
The fact that medical treatment may also benefit a non-compensable earlier injury or condition is irrelevant.
Whether or not claimant may have needed future treatment even if the injury did not occur is irrelevant to the analysis of whether future medical care flows from the injury actually occurred. With respect to permanent partial disability it is immaterial that the employee had a prior condition as an employee is entitled to compensation for disability rising out of the medical treatment reasonably required to treat the injury.
With respect to future medical benefits, the claimant need only show reasonable probability because of the work-related injury, future medical treatment will be required. A claimant need not show evidence of the specific nature of the treatment required.
In other words, prior conditions, such as arthritis, is irrelevant if the doctor says you suffered a work injury. The employer/insurer must treat both.
James Hoffmann
St. Louis, Missouri workers comp and car accident lawyer.
314 361 4300
[email protected]
The Law Office of James M Hoffmann was referred to me from a previous client, that was extremely impressed, with his service and outcome.
I met with Jim Hoffmann to discuss a car accident. Three cars were involved, my car was totaled, and I was seriously injured. After meeting with Jim the very first time, I immediately felt comfortable, and knew that he would have my back, and would fight for me.
Throughout my journey, I dealt with a lot of pain and several issues that lasted for years. During this time I had to contact Jim and Jamie (Jim’s wonderful assistant) many times. Every time I sent an email with questions, I received feedback extremely quickly!
I feel Jim negotiated a great settlement for me!
The Law Office of James Hoffman will be the first place I contact if I ever need his help again!
Suzanne Charles
James Hoffmann
St. Louis, MO auto accident and workers compensation lawyer
314 361 4300
Glad to fight for the injured Missouri worker and those injured on car accidents.
James Hoffmann
Missouri personal injury attorney
314 361 4300
[email protected],
Jim Hoffmann
Missouri workers compensation and car accident attorney
314 361 4300
St. Louis, MO
Compensation? Get this lawyer. Simply better than all the rest.
James Hoffmann
314 361 4300
[email protected]
James Hoffmann
Missouri workers compensation and auto accident lawyer
314 361 4300
[email protected]
Writing a proposed award for an upcoming work comp trial for an injured Missouri worker. L4-S1 lumbar fusion with plates and screws. Pursuing permanent and total disability plus denied medical. Here is the case law on denied medical in MO workers compensation:
The employer is held liable for medical treatment procured by the employee only when the employer has notice that the employee needs treatment, or a demand is made on the employer to furnish medical treatment, and the employer refuses or fails to provide the needed treatment. Hawkins v. Emerson Electric Co., 676 S.W.2d 872, 880 (Mo.App.1984).
The courts have consistently held that an award of past medical expenses is supported when the employee provides (1) the bills themselves; (2) the medical record reflecting the treatment giving rise to the bill; and (3) testimony identifying the bills. Martin v. Mid-America Farm Lines, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 105, 111-12 (Mo. 1989).
The pertinent case law requires employee to prove that the past medical expenses were “due” to support an award of interest. McCormack v. Stewart Enters., 956 S.W.2d 310, 314 (Mo. App. 1997). As explained in McCormack, this means employee must show that he actually paid the bills, or received demands that he pay interest on the bills, or suffered some other loss, such as a doctor refusing to provide additional treatment until employee paid his bill. Id.
Law Office of James M. Hoffmann
314 361 4300
James Hoffmann, attorney
314 361 4300
[email protected]
Gold bless
James Hoffmann, attorney
314 361 4300
Law Office of James M Hoffmann
St. louis, MO injury attorney
314 361 4300
James Hoffmann
Missouri personal injury and workers comp lawyer.
314 361 4300
If you are injured at work and decide to pursue workers’ compensation, there are a few critical steps you need to go through before obtaining your benefits. One of those steps might be a deposition. A deposition is a recorded interview that is taken under oath. During it, a lawyer will ask you questions about your injury. This allows them to have a record of your recounting of the events surrounding your accident and your current health. While this may sound intimidating, most people find their depositions to be quite comfortable. Still, you should prepare yourself to handle your deposition correctly.
Before
If you are making a workers’ compensation claim, it is generally a good idea to speak with a St. Louis work injury lawyer to ensure everything goes smoothly. When you have a deposition, that attorney will help you prepare. You will review together your evidence, injuries, the story surrounding the accident, and how much work you have missed.
What Takes Place During
Your deposition will likely take place in a meeting room at a law office. The people in attendance will typically be you, your lawyer, the opposing lawyer, and a court recorder. After exchanging pleasantries, you will take an oath, to tell the truth. Though you are outside the courtroom, this oath is just as powerful as the one you take while testifying in court. That means that if you lie, you could be subject to perjury. Once you make your oath, the questions will start. They will ask you for background information, prior injuries, how your work accident happened, your medical treatment plan, and any physical limitations you are experiencing.
How the Process Unfolds
The hearing process may look rather similar to a trial. Here, you will present your case to an administrative judge, and essentially explain why your worker’s compensation claim should not have been denied by the insurance company. The company will then make a case to justify their actions.
Most of these hearings can be resolved on the same day, but more complicated cases can take longer than that if there is a lot of evidence to go through. Here are the main things you need to about these hearings:
1. Who Will Be There?
Though these aren’t public as is the case with many trials, you can expect multiple people to be present:
- Lawyers
- The judge
- Court reporter
- Witnesses
- Your employer or a representative
- Someone from the insurance company
2. What Evidence Do You Need to Present?
First, you have the documents relevant to your claim:
- Medical records
- Unpaid medical bills
- Lost wages
- Employee records
- Depositions taking during the claims’ process
You may also have witness testimony or other evidence (such as surveillance videos, for instance) which you can present in front of the judge.
3. Will You Testify?
In most cases yes. The judge will likely want to hear your story, so you will be asked to testify and provide information on:
- Your accident
- Your injuries or illness
- How it affected your life
- Your job description, etc.
Additionally, the other side has the right to cross-examine you, meaning they will ask you questions. You will be under oath the entire time.
Tips For Answering Questions
There are a few guidelines to follow when answering questions in a deposition. They are:
Wait For a Question to be Finished Before Answering It – The court recorder needs to type out exactly what was said in your deposition. Additionally, you should fully understand a question before answering it. Waiting for questions to be finished before answering will help in both domains.
Answer Every Question Out Loud – That means no nodding or “uh-huh” answers. Because this interview is recorded through writing, you need to be clear in your responses.
Don’t Offer Extra Information – If you’re asked a yes or no question, it’s best to answer yes or no. Do not give additional information when you don’t have to.
Don’t Guess – If you do not know the answer to a question, tell the lawyer the truth. Don’t try to guess. If you do, it may end up hurting your case.
Mistakes to Avoid During Workers’ Comp Deposition
The deposition process allows both sides to gather information and build their case. But it also presents an opportunity for mistakes to be made. If you’re pursuing a workers’ comp case, there are some common deposition mistakes that you’ll want to avoid.
Providing Information or Facts That You’re Unsure About
One of the biggest mistakes that people make in depositions is providing information or facts that they’re not sure about. It’s important to remember that you’re under oath when you’re giving your deposition. This means that everything you say can be used against you in court.
That said, if you don’t know the answer to a question or are unsure about something, it’s better to say so. Don’t try to guess or make up an answer. If you do, you could end up contradicting yourself later on.
Leaving Out Important Information
When answering questions during a deposition, it’s important to be honest and complete in your answers. Don’t try to hide anything or leave out important details. For example, if you were injured in a work accident, don’t try to downplay the extent of your injuries.
The attorney questioning you will likely have access to your medical records, so they’ll know if you’re not being truthful about your injuries. If you try to hide something, it will reflect poorly on you and could damage your case.
Exaggerating or Making False Statements
It’s natural to want to make your case as strong as possible. But it’s important to resist the temptation to exaggerate your injuries or the severity of the accident. Doing so will make you look dishonest and could damage your credibility.
The same is true for making false statements. Don’t try to mislead the attorney or the court by lying about what happened.
Formulating Answers in a Manipulative Way
Some people phrase their answers in manipulative way during a deposition to make their case seem stronger. For example, they might answer a question in a way that implies something that isn’t true. Or they might try to avoid answering a question directly.
Manipulative answers like these can backfire. The attorney questioning you will likely see through your attempts to manipulate the answers. And if the judge or jury sees it, they may not be as sympathetic to your case.
The best way to approach a deposition is to be honest, direct, and straightforward in your answers. If you do that, you’ll be in a much better position to succeed in your workers’ comp case.
Acting in an Unprofessional Manner While Under Oath
Another common mistake is acting in an unprofessional manner while under oath. This includes things like arguing with the attorney who is questioning you, being disrespectful, or refusing to answer a question.
It’s important to remember that everything you say and do during your deposition can be used against you in court. So even if you’re feeling frustrated or angry, try to remain calm and professional.
St. Louis Workers Compensation Attorney
Though a deposition may sound stressful, you should not fear having to do one. As long as you are honest and prepared, the proceedings should go relatively smoothly. The best way to ensure a positive experience is by seeking the help and experience of a St. Louis workers compensation lawyer. With a trusted attorney at your side, you can complete your deposition with confidence.