LPM Win for Client

LPM Win for Client

Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays WINS Workers Compensation Benefits for her Client at Hearing.

Mr. AH worked as a mechanic of heavy-duty equipment, repairing forklifts and excavators for over 4 years.  In doing this job, he used his hands and arms constantly to lift, pull, push, grip, and grasp.  He used heavy tools and handled parts up to 300 lbs.  Often solo on the job, Mr. AH used his upper extremities, repetitively, in awkward positions and spaces.  As the lead technician, he was considered by his employer as the guy who got the job done.

In 2020, Mr. AH started feeling increasing fatigue, pain, numbing, and radiating pain up his arms and down into the tips of his finger.  The pain became unbearable, so he informed his employer of his symptoms.  Mr. AH sought medical treatment.  At first the workers compensation carrier accepted responsibility for AH’s injury occurring at work.  Mr. AH underwent two carpal tunnel surgeries to his hands, but symptoms persisted to his forearms with pain radiating requiring ongoing restrictions and medical treatment.

Fearing higher financial exposure in Mr. AH’s workers compensation claim, the workers compensation insurance carrier sent AH to their Medical Examiner to conduct a Record Review to determine if the injury is work-related.  A Record Review involves reviewing an injured workers medical record, without a personal examination, in order to make a medical determination.  The Medical Examiner determined that the pain symptoms in AH’s forearms were not related to the work activity, and that Mr. AH suffered no disability to his hands despite undergoing carpal tunnel surgeries on both hands.  This Adverse Examiner opined that the forearm pain developed in a degenerative type fashion that was personal to him which could occur even in the absence of significant exposure to high-force torquing and gripping activities.   

Mr. AH sought out and hired Mays Law Office to fight for his denied workers compensation benefits.  In doing so, Attorney Pierobon Mays went to work immediately and got a supporting medical report from AH’s Neurologist who assessed permanent physical restrictions and disability to Mr. AH’s hands and forearms.  Attorney Pierobon Mays filed appeal paperwork with the Department of Workforce Development claiming that Mr. AH suffered a compensable occupational injury to both his hands and arms at the elbows.  Attorney Pierobon Mays also made a claim for Retraining on behalf of AH as his date-of-injury employer terminated him due to the work injury.  With permanent disability and physical restrictions to his hands and forearms, Mr. AH was unable to find comparable paying work and needed to be retrained in order to find comparable paying work.     

As the date approached for the Hearing, Opposing Counsel expressed frustration in her client, the workers compensation insurance carrier, for extending no more than a minimal settlement offer leaving Mr. AH with no choice but to go to hearing.  In pushing Mr. AH to a hearing, Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays hit her opponent right back.

*Attorney Pierobon Mays refused to allow Mr. AH to attend a requested medical visit with the workers compensation carrier’s Medical Examiner because the deadline period had passed.  This left Opposing Counsel with nothing more than an outdated Record Review Report that lacked a full analysis of all of Mr. AH’s medical treatment records.  This record review was sorely lacking in credibility in contrast to the end-of-healing Report authored by Mr. AH’s Neurologist. 

*Attorney Pierobon Mays also pointed out at hearing that even the workers compensation Medical Examiner agreed, in his albeit old Record Review Report, that the American Medical Association attributes injuries, like those to Mr. AH’s hand and forearms, from the kind of work that AH did for the employer;

*Attorney Pierobon Mays also illuminated multiple medical records that clearly explained Mr. AH’s pain symptoms that the workers compensation carrier missed in his analysis. 

*Lastly, Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays prepared Mr. AH well for the hearing where she elicited descriptive testimony from Mr. AH as to the intensity of his work exposure over a 3-year period from 2016 to 2020.

All this deflated opposing counsel who asked no more than 10 questions of Mr. AH on cross-examination, who was well-prepared for any hardball questions. 

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of Mr. AH finding that there was no dispute that he had significant exposure to repetitious high-force torquing and gripping activities during the course of his job duties with the employer.  The Judge also found that the opinions of AH’s Neurologist were consistent with AH’s testimony and the medical evidence and credited his opinion on causation.  In finding such, the Judge awarded Mr. AH benefits for permanent partial disability to both hands and elbows/forearms, all his lost time/wage benefits for missing work while on restrictions, and all his medical treatment and medical mileage.  The issue of Retraining will be determined at a future hearing.    

Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays is very proud of the win that she achieved for her client, AH.  Attorney Pierobon Mays will not force a settlement on her client’s that is not fair, justified, and well-based.  In Mr. AH’s case, Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays knew the strength of AH’s case and was confident in her abilities to win a favorable result for him at the administrative hearing.  Attorney Lisa Pierobon Mays handles every single one of her workers compensation cases from the beginning paperwork through and to a hearing or settlement.  Her clients are never shuffled to a paralegal to answer their questions.  Consultations are free and calls usually returned the same day.

Mays Law Office has the coveted 5-star Google rating which is based on favorable reviews from actual clients.   A rating like this is hard to achieve and only because the May Law Office attorneys get favorable results for their clients.

NOT GUILTY – Record 27-minute verdicts

NOT GUILTY – Record 27-minute verdicts

In a Mays Law Office new record, Attorneys Steve Mays and John Orth scored double NOT GUILTY verdicts in an Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) and Prohibited Alcohol Concentration (PAC) case in Dane County. The client, BS, was stopped for operating without required lamps lighted shortly before 10:00 p.m. on Johnson Street near the UW-Madison campus last summer. When the officer inquired whether BS had had anything to drink, she candidly informed him that she had just had two beers at the UW Memorial Union Terrace 20 to 30 minutes prior. The officer had her exit her vehicle and perform field sobriety tests amid heavy vehicular and pedestrian traffic. After deeming her performance unsatisfactory, he placed her under arrest for OWI. BS submitted to an Intoximeter EC/IR breath test that yielded a result of .08. The officer issued her citations for Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) and Operating with a Prohibited Alcohol Concentration (PAC).

With no intention of advising BS to plead to either of these charges, Attorneys Mays and Orth requested that the matter be set for trial, originally scheduled for November of 2022. With trial approaching, Attorney Orth filed with the District Attorney’s office a scholarly article, admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule as a “learned treatise,” regarding research studies regarding the physiological absorption, distribution and elimination of alcohol in the human body. This notified the prosecution of his intention to mount a blood alcohol “curve defense.” The fundamental basis of such a defense is the proposition that at the time of driving, there may be unabsorbed alcohol in a driver’s stomach that was absorbed into the bloodstream between the time of driving and the time that an evidentiary chemical test of blood, breath or urine was conducted. This, in turn, would lead to a test result higher than what the driver’s alcohol level would have been at the time of driving – the pivotal time of essence in a PAC charge. Rather than recognize that there might be a fatal flaw in the case and offer to resolve on reduced charges, the prosecution requested an adjournment in order to secure a toxicologist supplied by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s Chemical Test Section. This was a mistake the prosecution would come to regret. The request was granted, and the matter was rescheduled for trial to March of 2023.

When the matter proceeded to trial, the State’s first witness was the arresting officer. On direct examination he testified to his extensive training in the detection and apprehension of intoxicated drivers, the damning indicators of intoxication displayed by BS during her performance of field sobriety testing, and the Intoximeter test results showing that she was over the legal limit (the legal limit being .08 and above). Finally, he testified to what the State attempted to characterize as practically a confession – when asked at the end of her processing if she thought she was under the influence of intoxicants at this time, she responded “yes” (which BS herself was able to later address as being the result of simply feeling worn down and defeated and willing to say whatever the officer wanted in order to simply get the ordeal over with).

Attorney Mays’ cross-examination revealed just how little weight the officer’s evaluation of BS’s performance on field sobriety testing should carry. BS’s performance on the balance-related field sobriety tests (the one-leg stand and walk-and-turn tests) was perfectly fine, something the jury could see with their own eyes through body cam footage. It was the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test that was put forth by the officer and the prosecution as the most compelling evidence of BS’s impairment. The officer testified that he observed six out of six possible clues of impairment and that the test – when administered properly – could correctly identify subjects with an alcohol concentration of .08 or above 87% of the time. However, as Attorney Mays made abundantly clear through his extensive cross-examination, whatever value that test might have had was severely compromised by the circumstances under which it was administered (i.e., that it was not administered properly). Confronted about his OWI training with the officer’s own National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) training manual and other training materials – said training Attorney Mays, himself, had received over the years along with periodic training updates – the officer had to reluctantly concede that the multitude of flashing lights (including the officer’s own emergency lights), passing traffic, and other distractions could induce other types of nystagmus (involuntary jerking of the eyes) and he had no way to tell whether the nystagmus he observed was due to alcohol consumption or anything else. This was observed on the arresting officer’s backup officer’s body worn camera – which was clear neither the arresting officer nor the prosecution had given any attention to, much less probably even seen, prior to the trial. By the time Attorney Mays was finished with him, the arresting officer simply had no choice but to admit that the manner in which he administered the test completely invalidated the HGN test results – the prosecution’s claimed “most damning” field sobriety test evidence.

The prosecution then called its expert toxicologist, no less than the Chief of the Chemical Test Section. On direct examination the State’s expert attempted a technique known as speculative retrograde extrapolation (although prosecution witnesses will steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the entire name and will simply call it “retrograde extrapolation”). This technique ignores the reality that a person’s alcohol level when charted over time takes on a curve shape, rising during the absorptive phase, peaking, then declining during the eliminative phase. Instead, the manner in which State toxicologists calculate a speculated alcohol concentration at an earlier point in time rests on the presumption that the subject was in the eliminative phase throughout the elapsed time, in this case roughly an hour between the time of driving and the time of testing. Relying on this baseless presumption, the State’s expert opined that BS’s alcohol concentration at the time of driving was likely as high as .10, rather than .08. The prosecution further elicited testimony that based on the Department of Transportation’s standard blood alcohol chart, the maximum alcohol concentration after drinking two beers for a female of BS’s weight would have been approximately .05 – the implication being that BS was lying when she told the officer that she had only had two beers. Again, relying on unfounded assumptions, this calculation was predicated on those two beers having been 4.2% alcohol by volume (ABV) “light” 12-ounce beers. But as anyone who has enjoyed a beer or two at the Memorial Union Terrace would know, that assumption is unlikely to hold true.

Attorney Other started off cross-examination by forcing the State’s expert to acknowledge the slew of shortcomings inherent in breath alcohol testing, from the Intoximeter EC/IR being programmed to accept test results with a whopping margin of error of .02 to the fact that it neither of the two required samples to have an “acceptable” test result, reflects the alcohol concentration at the time of driving nor even reliably correlates to a blood alcohol concentration, the actual source of impairment. Attorney Orth then directed the toxicologist to repeat her calculation of peak alcohol, but this time replace the two 12-ounce light beers with two 15-ounce beers, one with an ABV of 5.2% and one with an ABV of 6.3% (which BS herself would later verify on the witness stand – those being a Fat Tire and Fantasy Factory brands). Now the peak alcohol level came out to approximately .08 – entirely consistent with BS’s statements to the officer and right in line with the test result obtained an hour after driving. After thorough questioning regarding the body of research on the subject of delayed alcohol absorption, the dubiousness of the (speculative) retrograde extrapolation technique, and the unlikelihood that the assumptions relied on in reaching her initial estimates bore any resemblance to the reality of this specific case, the State’s own expert had to concede that she simply could not say what BS’s alcohol concentration was at the time of driving and that it may well have been significantly below the .08 legal limit. With her retrograde extrapolation having been thoroughly exposed as nothing more than meaningless algebra masquerading as science, the State’s expert ultimately wound up being a more effective witness for the defense than the prosecution.

Following closing arguments Attorney Orth asked the jury to return not guilty verdicts. A mere 27 minutes later, they did precisely that.

Why You Shouldn’t Plead Guilty Even if You Admitted to Driving Drunk in Wisconsin

Why You Shouldn’t Plead Guilty Even if You Admitted to Driving Drunk in Wisconsin

If you got pulled over for driving under the influence (DUI) and admitted to drinking while on the side of the road, you might be thinking that it’s time to plead guilty. After all, you confessed to the crime, so it must be time to accept the consequences and try to move on.


Wrong. Even if you told your arresting officer that you had been drinking, you may still have several options for fighting your DUI charge in Wisconsin. Here, Middleton DUI defense lawyer Stephen E. Mays discusses five ways that you may be able to avoid a DUI conviction:

5 Ways to Avoid a DUI Conviction Even If You Admitted to Drinking

1. Showing that Your Admission Doesn’t Constitute a DUI Confession

Just because you admitted to drinking, this doesn’t necessarily mean that you were drunk behind the wheel. For example, let’s say the arresting officer asked you if you had been drinking, and you simply responded “Yes.” The officer then asked you to step out of the car, and the officer proceeded to administer the breathalyzer and administer the field sobriety tests (FSTs) without asking you any additional questions.

In this scenario, what did you actually admit? All you admitted to was that you had been drinking at some point in the past. This leaves open key questions such as:

  • How many drinks did you have?
  • What types of drinks did you have?
  • How long ago did you have your last drink?

To secure a conviction, prosecutors must be able to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. With these types of key questions left unanswered, your “confession” does relatively little to help build the prosecution’s case against you.  

Now, what if you said something else? For example, what if the officer asked if you knew why he pulled you over, and you responded, “Probably because I was driving drunk.” Even in this scenario, your words aren’t necessarily proof that you are guilty of DUI.

Why? One reason is that you might be wrong. Even if you think you are intoxicated, you might not be—at least not for purposes of Wisconsin’s DUI statute. Proving intoxication requires clear evidence and expert analysis—and most private citizens (and even most police officers) don’t have the expertise needed to accurately evaluate a person’s level of alcohol impairment.

2. Showing that the Prosecution Doesn’t Have Enough Other Evidence to Convict You

Given that any admissions you may have made on the side of the road are inherently unreliable, prosecutors will need more than just your own words to convict you—or at least they should if you have an experienced DUI defense lawyer on your side. With this in mind, another way to avoid a conviction after you admit to drinking is to show that prosecutors don’t have enough other evidence of guilt.

To secure a conviction, prosecutors must be able to prove that either: (i) you were “incapable of safely driving” due to your alcohol consumption; or, (ii) you had a “prohibited alcohol concentration” (i.e., your BAC was 0.08 or above if you are over 21). Proving that you were “incapable of safely driving” requires more than just evidence that you were drinking, and proving that your BAC was over the legal limit requires a valid breath, blood, or urine test. If prosecutors don’t have the evidence they need, then you are entitled to a “not guilty” verdict regardless of whether you were drunk behind the wheel.

3. Asserting Your Constitutional Rights to Keep Your Admission Out of Court

Another way an experienced DUI defense lawyer may be able to help you avoid a conviction is by keeping your admission (and potentially the prosecution’s other evidence) out of court. This may be an option if:

  • The police stopped you in violation of your Fourth Amendment rights; 
  • The police arrested you in violation of your Fourth Amendment rights; or,
  • The police interrogated you in violation of your Fifth Amendment rights.

Prosecutors cannot use evidence that the police obtain in violation of your constitutional rights. So, if the police or prosecutors violated your rights—and if your lawyer can prove it—this can also serve to protect you even if you were driving under the influence at the time of your arrest.

4. Entering Into a Diversion Program

Even if your statements are admissible in court, and even if prosecutors have enough other evidence to convict you, you may still be able to avoid a conviction by entering into a diversion program. Your lawyer can determine if you are eligible for one of these programs. If you are, your DUI case will be “diverted” from trial while you go through the program; and, if you complete the program successfully, your case will be closed without a conviction.

5. Negotiating a Plea Bargain that Reduces Your Charge

Finally, even if you can’t challenge the prosecution’s evidence and you aren’t eligible for pretrial diversion, you may still be able to avoid the severe consequences of a DUI conviction by negotiating a plea bargain. For example, in many cases, it will be possible to negotiate a plea to a “wet reckless”—essentially a reckless driving charge that involves alcohol consumption.

The penalties for reckless driving in Wisconsin are far less severe than the penalties for driving under the influence. The long-term consequences of pleading guilty to reckless driving are far less severe than getting convicted of DUI as well. With all of that said, you never want to plead guilty if you don’t have to, so you should talk to an experienced DUI defense lawyer before you make any decisions about how to approach your case.

Contact Us for a Free DUI Defense Consultation in Middleton, WI

If you are facing a DUI charge in Wisconsin and you admitted to drinking, we strongly encourage you to contact us for more information about how to handle your case. To arrange a free, no-obligation consultation with an experienced DUI defense lawyer in Middleton, call 608-257-0440 or get in touch with us online today.