Case Results

Results Calhoon & Kaminsky has gotten for those looking for help with workers' compensation

Results*. Isn’t that what you’re looking for when you you’ve went months without a paycheck, the bills are not getting paid, and you can’t get the medical treatment you need to get back to work.

If you’re tired of the run-around and just want your problems taken care of, give us a call at 717-695-4722 or 1-877-291-WORK (9675) if the call is long-distance.

Client Testimonial | Calhoon & Kaminsky
"I would recommend anyone to get representation from Ron and Matt as soon as possible. They can guide you and point you in the right direction and tell you what's next. They don't treat you like clients. They don't treat you like you're just somebody that comes in and your name's on a folder. They treat you like real people."
Case Study
By Calhoon and Kaminsky P.C.
An employee from  Harrisburg, PA, working as a connections coordinator for a retirement community, sustained a work-related injury in October 2012, which the insurance carrier, PMA, accepted as a right knee contusion. During prior litigation, we filed Review Petitions to amend the description of the injury and a Stipulation was then entered into agreeing that the accepted injury would also include a torn meniscus in the right knee and right chronic Achilles insertional tendonitis with aggravation of Haglund’s deformity.
By Calhoon and Kaminsky P.C.
An union employee from York, PA, working in a heavy duty manufacturing position, sustained a work injury described as a right shoulder strain in February 2012, which the insurance carrier accepted. We filed a Penalty Petition because the insurance carrier illegally suspended the injured workers’ wage loss benefits. The insurance carrier had the injured worker attend an independent medical examination and the IME physician reported that the injured worker’s diagnosis could easily be consistent with a frozen shoulder and that she qualified for surgery to repair her shoulder and he placed her under light duty restrictions.
By Calhoon and Kaminsky P.C.
An employee from Lancaster, PA, working as a custodian for a school in Hershey, PA, sustained a work-related injury to his cervical and lumbar back in February 2014, which the insurance carrier, Highmark Casualty Insurance Company, denied. We filed a Claim Petition for the injured worker. The insurance carrier had the injured worker attend an independent medical examination.
Case Study
By Calhoon and Kaminsky P.C.
A Union employee from Bloomsburg, PA, working as a driver for a delivery company, sustained a work injury to his right shoulder in April 2012, which the insurance carrier, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, accepted for payment of medical benefits only as a “left upper arm sprain.” We filed a Claim Petition describing the injury as “right shoulder – torn tendons and torn rotator cuff.” The injured worker was working in a light-duty position at a loss of wages and we requested partial disability from the date of injury to the present and ongoing.
Case Study
By Calhoon and Kaminsky P.C.
An employee from Lewisberry, PA, working as a merchandiser for a soda company, sustained a work injury accepted as a right shoulder strain/sprain in September 2014, by the insurance carrier, Indemnity Insurance Company of North America. The injured worker was treating with Steven M. DeLuca, D.O., and the insurance carrier filed a Utilization Review Request regarding his prescribing an H-Wave stimulator for the employee to use. A Utilization Review was performed which found that the H-Wave machine was not reasonable and not necessary for the injured worker’s injury.
Case Study
By Calhoon and Kaminsky P.C.
The injured worker, a resident of Oberlin, Dauphin County, PA, suffered a work injury to the low back while employed for Pitt Ohio Express in 1994. Recently, he treated with Stuart Hartman, D.O. for the work injury, who prescribed medications filled by Injured Workers’ Pharmacy.
Case Study
By Calhoon and Kaminsky P.C.
The injured worker KG was employed by JDB Construction as a trade carpenter, working construction framing houses. On December 6, 2006, he slipped and fell into a ditch and herniated two (2) discs. The workers’ compensation insurance carrier is the State Workers’ Insurance Fund (SWIF), who accepted liability for this work injury. The injured worker KG underwent back surgery in 2007, along with back and hip injections. His treating physicians are Dr. Robert Boyer, a chiropractor in Chambersburg, PA, and Dr. Curtis Goltz, an orthopedic surgeon in Harrisburg, PA The injured worker KG has been treating with Dr. Boyer for many years.
By Calhoon and Kaminsky P.C.
Harold Crisp (name changed for this summary) was injured in the course of his employment in Carlisle, PA. Gallagher Bassett, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier for the employer, issued a Notice of Temporary Compensation Payable (NTCP) on June 22, 2016 for Mr. Crisp’s June 8, 2016 work injury described as a right knee sprain. The insurance carried then issued a Notice of Workers’ Compensation Denial on August 9, 2016.
By Calhoon and Kaminsky P.C.
Fred Xavier (name changed for this summary) while working for Defendant in June 2014, sustained an injury to his right knee. Inservco, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier for the employer, issued a Notice of Compensation Payable and the injured worker received wages in lieu of workers’ compensation. Mr. Xavier’s injury was accepted as a “right knee medial meniscus tear”.
By Calhoon and Kaminsky P.C.
Trevon Landis (name changed for this summary) was injured in the course of his employment in Muncy, Pennsylvania (PA). PMA, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier for the employer, issued a Notice of Temporary Compensation Payable (NTCP) on December 23, 2014 for Mr. Landis’ November 3, 2014 injury described as a left great toe dislocation. The NTCP converted to a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP) on February 3, 2015.
*Please note that every case is different, and the following case results (though accurate) may not reflect the amount of compensation you will receive in your case. Prior results are not a guarantee of future results as every case is unique and factually different.