Equitable tolling: Unveiling the truth

Discover how my own lawyer inadvertently helped preserve equitable tolling by keeping crucial information from me. Join me as I shed light on this complex legal concept and its unexpected twist

My cost to build this page. Around 100 sheets of paper.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Injury Event (03/28/2024):
Plaintiff was reassigned to a special projects area and required to stand approximately 12 hours on concrete without a floor mat. Multiple records state mats were required but not provided.

• Immediate Harm:
Extended standing caused callus formation, skin breakdown, open wounds, pain, loss of sensation, and functional impairment in the distal right foot and toes. Symptoms began only after the work reassignment and progressively worsened.

• Delayed and Denied Treatment:
Records repeatedly state treatment should begin “as soon as possible,” including podiatry and protective footwear. Plaintiff never received any treatment whatsoever.

• IME Internal Contradictions (Key Evidence):
IME records acknowledge pain, bleeding calluses, impaired gait, balance problems, and functional limits (standing ~5 minutes, walking less than one block), and tie the condition to the March 28, 2024 injury date. Despite this, the examiner simultaneously claims the condition is not work-related and that Plaintiff reached maximum medical improvement—positions that directly conflict.

• Causation Reversal:
Early records attribute injury to work conditions (concrete surface, lack of mat). Later opinions attempt to shift causation to diabetes after the fact, despite no prior foot ulcers, no prior disabling foot condition, and symptom onset only after the workplace change.

• Functional Reality:
Documented limp, sensory loss, pain with ambulation, inability to safely perform balance testing, and restrictions inconsistent with a “stable” or “MMI” condition.

• Attorney-Controlled Delay (Equitable Tolling):
Plaintiff relied on workers’ compensation counsel who confined the matter exclusively to comp, controlled records and communications, failed to explain IME findings, and never advised Plaintiff of other legal remedies—preventing timely discovery of non-comp claims.

• Plaintiff’s Actions:
Plaintiff personally obtained records, ensured delivery to counsel, excluded trivial documents, and preserved only evidentiary material.

BOTTOM LINE:
The record admits a work-caused injury, admits immediate treatment was required, documents ongoing disability, then denies responsibility without reconciling those facts—while Plaintiff was kept unaware of his legal rights. This supports equitable tolling, credibility challenges, and liability beyond workers’ compensation.