- Report: #27647
Complaint Review: Thomas More Holland - Philadelphia Pennsylvania
-
Author Not Confirmed
Why?
Thomas More Holland
1522 Locust Street Philadelphia, 19102 Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Phone:
215-592-8080
Web:
N/A
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Thomas More Holland sold out ripoff dishonest Philadelphia Pennsylvania
I accuse Thomas More Holland, Attorney at Law, of selling me out on a workman's comp case he was handling for me. I have proof of this in writing.
John
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
John
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
1 Updates & Rebuttals
TMH Law
Philadelphia,Pennsylvania,
USA
The facts demonstrate that Thomas More Holland handled the case properly
#2REBUTTAL Owner of company
Tue, January 12, 2010
The Law Offices of Thomas More Holland have reviewed the comments included in Ripoff Report # 27647 and respond as follows:
The public records for this case demonstrate that (1) John received approximately four (4) years of workers compensation benefits for a claimed flea bite, and (2) the Law Offices of Thomas More Holland (TMH) handled the case zealously until the Commonwealth Court the second level of appeal from a Workers Compensation Judges Decision reversed the Judge and denied this gentleman future benefits.
The facts demonstrate that TMH took extensive measures to represent this client. TMH filed a workers compensation Claim Petition, presented the testimony of two medical witnesses, and won the case in front of the Workers Compensation Judge. SEPTA, his employer, appealed; the Workers Compensation Appeal Board agreed with the Judge, and concluded that TMH had proven our case and that John was entitled to wage loss and medical benefits (past and future) for his injuries.
SEPTA then filed an appeal to the Commonwealth Court. In a decision released on November 8, 1996 (at No. 1039 C.D. 1996), the Court disagreed with the Workers Compensation Judge and the Appeal Board and reversed the original decision. The Court ruled that the evidence/facts (as presented by the injured worker, John, in his own testimony) were not sufficient to justify an award of benefits. Thus, the Court concluded that Johns testimony about how he was bitten by a flea, which was uncorroborated by any other witness or any photos or any other evidence, was not legally sufficient to entitle him to benefits under the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act. TMH disagreed, but the Commonwealth Court is the final arbiter.
Because there is no automatic right of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the only avenue left for John was to file a petition to ask the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to hear his case. It was the opinion of TMH that he should not pursue the case to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court because (1) it was very unlikely that the Court would take the case, and (2) it was the concern of TMH that, if the Court ruled against John, it would set a bad precedent for other cases.
It is important to note that John received about 4 years of benefits and, even though he ultimately lost, he was able to keep the money he received and did not have to pay it back.
Therefore, the Law Offices of Thomas More Holland believes that it gave its absolute best effort to represent the client as clearly demonstrated by the facts of this case.
