The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, Workers’ Compensation Commission Division, issued the opinion on September 30, 2014.

Walter Matuszczak, a Wal-Mart employee, originally filed an application for adjustment of claim on March 26, 2010. Matuszczak, who worked as a full-time night stocker, injured his right arm, neck and back at work when several shelves stocked with glass cleaner fell on him.

After a hearing, the arbitrator awarded Matuszczak temporary total disability (TTD) benefits for a period of 23 weeks and two days, in addition to $14,227.41 in medical expenses, and prospective medical expenses for a recommended surgery.

Upon review, the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission (IWCC) vacated the TTD award. The Du Page County Circuit Court reinstated the TTD award, and the appeals court affirmed it, holding that the claimant was entitled to TTD benefits.

The employer argued that the claimant’s termination for allegedly stealing cigarettes from his employer constituted a refusal to work within his prescribed physical restrictions. The appeals court found that the facts of the case were similar to those in Interstate Scaffolding Inc. v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, a 2010 Illinois Supreme Court case that found that an injured employee discharged for cause was still entitled to TTD benefits.

Paul Greenberg is a Chicago workers compensation attorney and work injury lawyer with Briskman Briskman & Greenberg. To learn more call 1.877.595.4878 or visit http://www.briskmanandbriskman.com/.

In tests conducted by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), scientists found that, under certain circumstances, gas vapor blends can ignite within portable cans and cause significant injury to those in the vicinity of the explosion.

CPSC has documented 11 deaths and 1,200 emergency room visits linked to gas can explosions during the pouring of gasoline since 1998.

Additional tests conducted at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute’s combustion laboratory demonstrated that, under limited conditions, a so-called “flashback” explosion can occur inside plastic gas cans.

A flashback explosion can be triggered even when a very small amount of gasoline is left in the can. Gas vapor can escape the container and meet a ignition source, such as a flame or a spark. The igniting vapor outside the can then “flashes back” inside the container, which ignites the mixture within it and causes a large burst of flames.

There have been at least 80 lawsuits filed in the last 20 years on behalf of plaintiffs injured in gas can explosions. The primary argument has been that the portable cans are “dangerous” and “unsafe” because they are “susceptible” to these flashback explosions. The bulk of the lawsuits have targeted Blitz USA, the biggest maker of plastic gas cans, as defendants, as well as Wal-Mart, the leading purveyor of the cans.

Central to the argument is the fact that the can’s design does not include a flame arrester. Lawsuits against Blitz have contended that they, if included, would prevent flashback explosions. Flame arresters, which are pieces or mesh or disks with holes designed to disrupt flames, are present in “safety” gas cans made of metal and in storage vessels of other flammable liquids.

CPSC has called on the gas can industry to manufacture gas cans with flame arresters within them. “CPSC believes that this technology also should be included in gasoline containers,” said the agency in a statement. “CPSC is calling on the industry to regain the momentum that was lost in years past by designing their products to include this safety technology. In addition, CPSC is asking voluntary standards organizations to incorporate a flame arrestor system into applicable safety standards for gas cans.”

At The Hale Law Firm, we have helped thousands of clients successfully prosecute their personal injury claims including auto accidents, wrongful death, dangerous products, brain injuries, burn injuries, and defective medical devices. Clients depend on their personal injury lawyers for guidance and legal advice across a broad range of personal injury accidents. To learn more, visit http://www.hale911.com/ or call 972.351.0000.

One such scam involves someone from the Far East with a thick accent placing a call to a consumer who might be in debt to a credit card company or some other lending institution.  The caller knows the name of the creditor, the amount of the balance, as well as information about the consumer.  All of this could have been accessed from the personal information such as name, address, and social security number which might allow someone to pull a credit report to determine the names of the consumer’s creditors.  The consumer is advised that they have a debt of some amount, perhaps near $10,000 to a particular creditor, but the caller claims to be a lawyer from Washington, D.C., or some other metropolitan area.  The phone number they are calling from will have an area code that matches the city they claim to be calling from.  This is a masking technique that anyone can produce using certain telephone vendors.  Anyone can purchase a Washington, D.C., area code and mask their calls as coming from that number .  In essence, someone from India could be calling you, appearing to be calling from Washington, D.C.  In some instances, the caller claims to be Attorney Michael Shaw from Washington, D.C. from the phone number 202-239-6225.

This “lawyer” will then tell the consumer that they may settle their debt for $900.  They are instructed to purchase a Green Dot money card from Walgreens, CVS, Wal-Mart or perhaps other vendors who sell these Green Dot credit cards.  The consumer is then advised to load money onto that card, and then call the “lawyer” from Washington, D.C., with the pin number of that Green Dot card so that the “lawyer” can access the $900 on the card for purposes of settling the debt.

Once the consumer gives the pin number to the “lawyer,” the scam artist from overseas will withdraw everything off the card.  For instance, if the consumer puts $2,000 on the Green Dot card but only authorizes the “lawyer” to take $900, the scam artist will withdraw the entire $2,000 amount.

The overseas scam artist will then call the consumer back and tell them that the settlement has now been declined, and that the consumer will be receiving a $900 refund in the mail.  A day later, the consumer will be called again by this same individual who will tell the consumer that the settlement has now been “approved” and they need to redo the transaction because the refund check has already been issued.  This time the scammer will tell the consumer that there is an additional $200 document fee, and so they will need to withdraw $1,100.  This process will repeat itself as many times as the consumer will allow it with different stories and excuses for why refunds will be issued and why new charges need to be taken from the Green Dot card.  Needless to say, no refund checks are ever sent, and some consumers have been known to lose over $5,000 by the various transactions conducted through this scheme.  In some instances, the consumer may be threatened by the caller, claiming that they will be turned over to the police with a warrant issued for their arrest for not paying their bills. The more the consumer protests, the more aggressive the threats become. In some instances the caller may call dozens of times everyday, harassing the consumer, without any threat of recourse due to his offshore location.  The best strategy is to screen your calls and do not engage this person at all. His attention will soon go to other potential victims if his calls are not being taken.

There are likely several variations of this scam, and consumers, particularly those in debt whose personal information may have been accessed through Target last month, need to be aware of these types of transactions.  In summary, consumers should be very cautious about engaging in any wire transfers, Green Dot transactions, or credit card transactions where debts are offering to be settled.  In addition, personal checks, money orders, and cashier’s checks can easily be counterfeited, and should not be relied upon by a consumer.  If ever you need to contact a creditor, or have been contacted by a creditor for purposes of settling a debt, the best approach is to get everything in writing with signed settlement documents and agreements prior to sending any funds.  Seeking attorney representation in this instance is always a good idea.

One such scam involves someone from the Far East with a thick accent placing a call to a consumer who might be in debt to a credit card company or some other lending institution.  The caller knows the name of the creditor, the amount of the balance, as well as information about the consumer.  All of this could have been accessed from the personal information such as name, address, and social security number which might allow someone to pull a credit report to determine the names of the consumer’s creditors.  The consumer is advised that they have a debt of some amount, perhaps near $10,000 to a particular creditor, but the caller claims to be a lawyer from Washington, D.C., or some other metropolitan area.  The phone number they are calling from will have an area code that matches the city they claim to be calling from.  This is a masking technique that anyone can produce using certain telephone vendors.  Anyone can purchase a Washington, D.C., area code and mask their calls as coming from that number .  In essence, someone from India could be calling you, appearing to be calling from Washington, D.C.  In some instances, the caller claims to be Attorney Michael Shaw from Washington, D.C. from the phone number 202-239-6225.

This “lawyer” will then tell the consumer that they may settle their debt for $900.  They are instructed to purchase a Green Dot money card from Walgreens, CVS, Wal-Mart or perhaps other vendors who sell these Green Dot credit cards.  The consumer is then advised to load money onto that card, and then call the “lawyer” from Washington, D.C., with the pin number of that Green Dot card so that the “lawyer” can access the $900 on the card for purposes of settling the debt.

Once the consumer gives the pin number to the “lawyer,” the scam artist from overseas will withdraw everything off the card.  For instance, if the consumer puts $2,000 on the Green Dot card but only authorizes the “lawyer” to take $900, the scam artist will withdraw the entire $2,000 amount.

The overseas scam artist will then call the consumer back and tell them that the settlement has now been declined, and that the consumer will be receiving a $900 refund in the mail.  A day later, the consumer will be called again by this same individual who will tell the consumer that the settlement has now been “approved” and they need to redo the transaction because the refund check has already been issued.  This time the scammer will tell the consumer that there is an additional $200 document fee, and so they will need to withdraw $1,100.  This process will repeat itself as many times as the consumer will allow it with different stories and excuses for why refunds will be issued and why new charges need to be taken from the Green Dot card.  Needless to say, no refund checks are ever sent, and some consumers have been known to lose over $5,000 by the various transactions conducted through this scheme.  In some instances, the consumer may be threatened by the caller, claiming that they will be turned over to the police with a warrant issued for their arrest for not paying their bills. The more the consumer protests, the more aggressive the threats become. In some instances the caller may call dozens of times everyday, harassing the consumer, without any threat of recourse due to his offshore location.  The best strategy is to screen your calls and do not engage this person at all. His attention will soon go to other potential victims if his calls are not being taken.

There are likely several variations of this scam, and consumers, particularly those in debt whose personal information may have been accessed through Target last month, need to be aware of these types of transactions.  In summary, consumers should be very cautious about engaging in any wire transfers, Green Dot transactions, or credit card transactions where debts are offering to be settled.  In addition, personal checks, money orders, and cashier’s checks can easily be counterfeited, and should not be relied upon by a consumer.  If ever you need to contact a creditor, or have been contacted by a creditor for purposes of settling a debt, the best approach is to get everything in writing with signed settlement documents and agreements prior to sending any funds.  Seeking attorney representation in this instance is always a good idea.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court against Ralcorp Holdings and its subsidiary Medallion Foods. Ralcorp makes private-label products that carry the name of the store where they are sold. Ralcorp’s Cupz brand chips are sold in Kroger stores and its Bowlz brand is carried by Wal-Mart. Both brands of chips are bowl-shaped for easier dipping, similar to Tostitos Scoops.

Frito-Lay, owned by PepsiCo, argued that the Ralcorp chips were too similar to its own chips in design and manufacture, and infringed on the company’s intellectual property. The plaintiff sought $4.5 million in damages and a court order prohibiting the defendants from manufacturing their chips. According to Frito-Lay, the Scoops brand was introduced in 2001 and generates tens of millions of dollars in annual sales.

After a two-week trial, the jury of seven women and three men deliberated for about five hours before finding for the defendants. The jury found no infringement of patent or trade dress and awarded no damages to Frito-Lay. A PepsiCo spokesperson said the company was considering its post-trial options.

Frito-Lay argued that the defendants obtained trade secrets from a vendor and former employees, but the company did not call any witnesses who saw employees take trade secrets. The jury found that the defendants’ chips were sufficiently dissimilar to the plaintiffs’ product such that consumers would not be confused.

Frito-Lay, based in Plano, Texas, has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of PepsiCo since 1965. Ralcorp, based in St. Louis, was purchased recently by ConAgra Foods for $5 billion.