Brad Allen Antonacci

Practice Details

• Firm Information
  Position

  Partner

  Firm Name

  Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen Professional Corporation
• Representative Cases & Transactions
  Cases

  Significant Cases: Ordoniz v. Dano Auto Body Petitioner claimed he injured his low back
  allegedly suffered a herniated disc while removing a car door from a vehicle. He amassed approximately $225, 000 in outst
  ing medical bills for treatment in the form of chiropractic care, physical therapy, medications, numerous spinal injections, a radiofrequency ablation
  numerous radiological tests. The Workers' Compensation Commission relied on our IME
  Utilization Review reports in finding petitioner suffered a lumbar strain
  in denying approximately $225, 000 in alleged outst
  ing medical bills as unreasonable, unnecessary
  causally unrelated to the work injury. The Commission awarded 3% person-as-a whole.
  Alanis v. Woodstock Christian Life Services Petitioner injured her lower back while pushing a cart
  slipping
  falling on some water. She received medical treatment for approximately one month, was released from treatment
  was released to return to work. She eventually began treating with a pain management physician who performed a series of lumbar spine injections as well as a radiofrequency ablation. When the pain management physician released petitioner after one year of treatment, the petitioner had accumulated an extensive amount of outst
  ing medical bills which we denied. Relying on our IME physician, the Workers' Compensation Commission denied approximately $34, 000 in alleged outst
  ing medical bills
  awarded 6% person-as-a-whole for a lumbar strain.
  Hieber v. Glass
  Mirror Company Petitioner suffered a compensable
  accepted right shoulder injury. Following right shoulder surgery, petitioner developed an infection in the right shoulder which resulted in a revision surgery. Subsequent to the second surgery, the petitioner suffered from kidney failure
  eventually required a kidney transplant. On behalf of glass
  mirror company client (Company) the firm presented evidence
  an expert opinion that the renal failure was not related to the right shoulder surgeries
  infection, that petitioner had risk factors for developing renal failure,
  that petitioner subsequently developed renal failure in the transplanted kidney. The arbitrator found the petitioner's renal failure to be causally connected to the right shoulder work injury
  awarded all benefits related to the renal failure. On review, the Worker's Compensation Commission found no causal connection between the work injury
  the petitioner's kidney condition,
  the circuit court affirmed on appeal. The Commission's decision resulted in a reduction of the arbitrator's award of more than $300, 000.