The lawfirm is presently engaged in a number of issues which are of significant import to the legal profession and to those we represent. Specific names of the cases will not be use protect the individuality of the client, but if further information is desired concerning any of the cases we discuss, please Email us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Bill Smith was injured while working for the City of Saginaw. He received benefits for a period of time and ultimately his doctor released him to return to work with significant medical restrictions. The employer offered him a job which met most of his medical restrictions. Mr. Smith did not believe he could perform the job and, thus, denied the job offer. He then resigned his employment so he could secure his pension benefits. When Mr. Smith finally saw a lawyer five days later, the lawyer advised him to immediately return to his employer and tell them he was ready, willing and able to work. The employer refused the offer to return saying the job had been filled. The case was tried in front of the Workers' Compensation Magistrate who denied benefits. The case is presently on appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals to determine if the job offer was held open long enough and if Mr. Smith will lose his benefits for failing to take the job offer when it was first offered to him.
Ralph Barnes was employed by J & B Trucking. He was injured during the course of his work and could not return to work. He wanted to retire. Without the advice of counsel, he paid his pension fund $4,500 to secure additional benefits and then retired. The additional pension benefits he received reduced the amount of workers' compensation benefits he was to receive. Mr. Barnes filed a petition alleging that he should be entitled to continuing wage loss benefits because he was the one who contributed to his pension in order to secure additional benefits. The employer denied the request. The Magistrate found in favor of the employer. The case is now on appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals for a determination of the amount of Mr. Barnes' pension that the employer can "coordinate" with Mr. Barnes' workers' compensation payments.
Tom Jones was employed in the snowmobile business. While on a snowmobiling trip out of state, he suffered severe injuries. He filed an application for benefits alleging that his trip was "work related" and that he was, thus, entitled to workers' compensation benefits. The case was tried and the Workers' Compensation Magistrate awarded Mr. Jones benefits. The case is on appeal to determine whether or not Mr. Jones was injured during the course of his employment and to define the parameters of injuries which occur off the job site. We believe the issues raised in this case will ultimately reach the Michigan Supreme Court.
Young Sarah was playing at her neighbor's house when the neighbor's dog, which was usually friendly, attacked Sarah. Sarah will require extensive medical treatment and has been seeing a counselor. The parents contacted the lawfirm and wondered if there was anything we could do. We are in the process of settling Sarah's case against the owners of the dog and will structure the payments so that Sarah will be afforded medical coverage after age 18 and so that her college education will be paid for. Michigan law protects individuals attacked or bitten by dogs.
Rosella Sanchez was on her way home from work in the Fall of 1998 when a reckless youth ran a stop sign and ran into her vehicle. Initially Mrs. Sanchez did not think her injuries were severe but contacted the lawfirm to discuss her rights. We advised her she should seek medical treatment if she was injured and that it was always best to wait to see what happened. Unfortunately, Mrs. Sanchez was subsequently diagnosed with a herniated disc in the neck and has significant residual difficulties. The lawfirm is presently handling her case against the reckless driver.
During the course of employment with Acme Tool 8 Die, Rosie was often the butt of sexual jokes by her co-workers. All Rosie wanted to do was do her job and get a paycheck - however, her male co-employees would not let her alone. She reported her problems to management - but management didn't seem to care. Rosie eventually had physical and mental problems which resulted in lost wages and medical expenses. Rosie called us and we advised that she may have a claim against her employer for sexual harassment. The case is presently awaiting trial in a rural county in Michigan.
Our client, a demolition company, was hired to demolish and remove an old garage. The garage had siding which contained asbestos. There was a significant dispute between federal law and state law as to whether or not the garage was to be considered a "commercial building." Due to the facts of the cases, the State of Michigan considered the garage as a residential building. The Federal Government considered it to be a commercial building and sued the demolition company for violating federal environmental regulations. Our office defended the claim in Federal Court and was successful in convincing the Federal Court that the garage was a residential structure under federal law. The case set national precedent and is discussed in numerous environmental journals.
Our client, an oil well plugging contractor, was hired to plug an oil well. Unfortunately, he plugged the wrong well which appeared as though it had been abandoned and in fact had not produced oil in over a year. Nonetheless, the owner of the wrongly plugged well sued the well plugging company for $25 million claiming that it could have recovered oil from the well had it not been plugged. The firm was hired to represent the contractor and we successfully defended the case. The firm argued that there were other methods available to recover the oil and that, in any event, the amount of oil which could have been recovered was too speculative.
|Home | Partners | About Us | Cases | Contact Us||
Copyright © 2005 Saginaw Attorneys|