The Wilmington Truck Accident attorney, Frederick Freibott, has helped injury victims and families in Delaware deal with the painful consequences of a Auto Accident accident or wrongful death claims involving motor vehicle accidents, slip and falls, nursing home abuse and neglect, uninsured motorist claims, dog bites, workplace injuries, and personal injuries.

Examples of some successful cases include, but are not limited to:

(1) Frederick S. Freibott was recently successful in obtaining an award from the Industrial Accident Board which held that the insurance company's worker's compensation Utilization Review was wrong and ordered the worker's compensation carrier to pay for the Claimant's subsequent surgery. The Claimant was injured in 2007 and underwent a double level spinal fusion in August of 2008. The Claimant had a subsequent surgical procedure in November of 2009. The worker's compensation carrier requested that a Utilization Review be performed. The Utilization Review panel concluded that the medical necessity for the requested surgery did not appear to be established and would not be consistent with the Delaware State Worker's Compensation Guidelines. The Freibott Law Firm filed an appeal de novo to the Utilization Review and the Industrial Accident Board overturned that determination on March 11, 2011. As a result, the worker's compensation carrier was ordered to pay the neurosurgeon's subsequent surgery bill along with the reimbursement of medical expert fees, court reporter fees, and the payment of an attorney's fee. (Reed v. Union Wholesale, Hearing No.: 1306398, Decision dated March 11, 2011)

(2) On August 16, 2010, the Industrial Accident Board issued a ruling on behalf of our client that found that she was still totally disabled from work and that her recent surgery was reasonable, necessary, and related to her original work accident. The Industrial Accident Board found our client to be credible; found her orthopaedic surgeon to be credible; and found that the doctor hired by the worker's compensation insurance company to be unpersuasive. Our client originally injured herself in February of 2007 and underwent her first surgical procedure in September of 2008. The claimant attempted to return to work; however, her duties at work severely aggravated her back condition and she decided to undergo a fusion surgery with her orthopaedic surgeon in March of 2010. The worker's compensation insurance company refused to pay for her surgery and her ongoing total disability because of its belief that her surgery was not reasonable, necessary, or related to her original work accident. Based upon the combination of the claimant's credibility and her clear need for a second surgery, the Industrial Accident Board awarded ongoing total disability benefits from July of 2009 to the present; awarded all outstanding medical expenses, including the second surgery, as reasonable, necessary, and related to the original work injury; awarded reimbursement of claimant's expert witness fees; and awarded attorney's fees to be paid by the worker's compensation insurance company. (Shipp v. United Distributors, Hearing No. 1298510 and 1311641)

(3) Our firm was recently successful in obtaining total disability benefits for a limited period of time on behalf of our client when he had a flare up of his neck injuries. The Industrial Accident Board awarded total disability benefits between July 1, 2008 and November 21, 2008. Our firm also sought a ruling from the Industrial Accident Board that our client's medical bills of just over $17,000.00 were reasonable, necessary, and related to the work injury. This was a very highly contested case and the Industrial Accident Board concluded that our firm, on our client's behalf, carried our burden of proof to show that our client had sustained an exacerbation (worsening) of his neck symptoms, entitling him to total disability for the above referenced time period and that the medical expenses claimed were compensable. The Industrial Accident Board found that our client and his treating doctor were credible in their testimony. The Industrial Accident Board also awarded an attorney's fee and reimbursement of the expert fee (Johnson v. Wal-Mart, Hearing No. 1290150, Date of decision June 28, 2010.)

(4) FREDRICK S. FREIBOTT recently secured a large verdict in a medical malpractice birth injury case. A jury returned a verdict of $528,000.00 in a case where a nurse midwife used excessive force during delivery. The nurse midwife did not recognize that the baby had a shoulder dystocia (the lodging of a shoulder against the mother's pubic bone), and, after using excessive force to deliver the baby, caused a severe brachial plexus injury to the baby, requiring numerous surgeries. Weglarz, et al., v. Ann-Marie Stafford, et al. C.A. No. 06C-08-144 MMJ

(5) FREDRICK S. FREIBOTT recently secured a large verdict in a slip and fall trial. A jury returned a verdict of $500,000.00, reduced by the client's comparative negligence, in a case where his client, a tenant at a commercial apartment complex, slipped and fell on ice that was not removed by the landlord. The client sustained severe injuries to her leg necessitating three surgical procedures. The defendant's property manager testified that he was not aware of certain ice removal procedures that the landlord had placed in writing years before the fall. The jury awarded money for the client's pain and suffering; medical bills; and lost wages. Snover v. William Penn Apartment Assocs., et al,. Del.Super., C.A. No. 07C-10-074 MJB (2009)

(6) Frederick S. Freibott recently received a policy limits settlement in a case where his client was going to the bathroom in a Port-a-Potty which was pushed over by vandals with him inside of it. A claim was made against the owner of the Port-a-Potty because the owner's company had not adequately secured the Port-a-Potty to the ground which made it easy for it to be pushed over. There was evidence in the case that this particular Port-a-Potty had been turned over on several occasions and the owner's company was made aware of that fact. The owner did nothing to prevent the Port-a-Potty from being pushed over. The Plaintiff secured expert testimony that suggested that a simple anchor into the ground, such as a 2x4 firmly secured to the Port-a-Potty, would have prevented the incident. The Plaintiff was severely injured because of this incident. (Toala v. Arrow Leasing Corp. C.A. No. 08C-03-065 RRC)

(7) FREDRICK S. FREIBOTT secured a very large settlement on behalf of his clients when he successfully argued in the Superior Court of Delaware that the parents of the son who killed his client's husband were also liable based upon a new, and modern, interpretation regarding the law of negligent entrustment. The parents loaned money to their son so he could buy a car even though they knew their son accumulated so many points on his driver's license that he had to be excluded from his parents' car insurance. The parents also knew that their son had been charged in the past with possession of Ketamine, an animal tranquilizer, and had his driver's license revoked for two years. Moreover, the parents were very sure that their son continued to drink alcohol prior to the motor vehicle collision that killed the client's husband. Mr. Freibott was also able to show that the son had been involved in an automobile collision several months prior to the one that caused death to his client's husband wherein the son fled the scene of the collision and appeared dazed and confused when confronted by the Wilmington Police Department. This case represents one of the first times that a Court, not only in Delaware, but in the United States, held that the loaning of money by parents to an adult child to purchase a vehicle, with the knowledge that their son was a poor driver and had a history of substance abuse, could be found liable under a negligent entrustment theory." Perez-Melchor, et al. v. Balakhani, et al., Del.Super., C.A. No. 04C-05-269 RRC (2006)

(8) FREDERICK S. FREIBOTT successfully argued in The Superior Court of Delaware and The Supreme Court of Delaware that an insurance company's biomechanical expert should not be allowed to testify against his client as the named expert's opinion was based upon speculation because, as the Courts held, the expert "apparently consistent with others in his 'field' made no attempt to take into account the specific personal history of the injured person." The Delaware Supreme Court held that the expert "had neither the competency nor the opportunity to consider these idiosyncratic circumstances." Eskin v. Carden, 842 A.2d 1222 (Del.Supr.,2004).

(9) FREDERICK S. FREIBOTT successfully obtained a ruling from The Supreme Court of Delaware forcing an insurance company to pay COBRA Health Benefits from the injured client's automobile insurance policy as the COBRA benefit was defined as a "lost earning" as defined by Delaware Law.

Contact our Delaware Truck Accident lawyer today to schedule your free initial consultation.