Download PDF
John L. O'Brien

John L. O'Brien

Partner

CT – Hartford area
T: 860.413.2711 | F: 860.413.2801

vCard

John focuses his practice on workers’ compensation, subrogation and general insurance defense matters at the trial and appellate levels. John represents insurers and employers at informal, pre-formal and formal hearings before the Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Commission in all eight state district courts, and during appeals before the Compensation Review Board.

John handles all aspects of workers’ compensation defense and also advises clients on matters relative to Medicare reporting requirements regarding set-asides and conditional payment inquiries as they relate to settlements. His legal practice also includes a concentration in non-medical professional liability, premises liability, and employment and labor law litigation.

John is a proud third generation workers’ compensation practitioner. The Connecticut Bar Association‘s “Workers’ Compensation Section Award for Career Excellence in the Field” is named, in part, for his grandfather Commissioner Edward D. O’Brien, Sr. In addition to litigation practice, John also frequently provides complimentary training to clients regarding workers’ compensation claim handling procedures.

Practices

Representative Experience

  • Estate of Torres v. Berline Line Apartments, LLC, No. HHDCV106016042, 2016 WL 2602482 (Conn. Super. CT. April, 12, 2016)
  • Yuditski v. Dibico Const. of Connecticut, Inc., No. CV126024517S, 2015 WL 5135034 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 27, 2015)
  • Mehta v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., No. 3:10-CV-1617 RNC, 2015 WL 1456834 (D. Conn. Mar. 30, 2015)
  • Sarg v. Greens Ass’n, Inc., No. 126029403, 2014 WL 5472222 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sep. 29, 2014)
  • Harris v. Nutmeg Bowl, Inc., No. FBTCV136035686S, 2013 WL 5716831 (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 1, 2013)
  • Marron v. Grala, CV126016399, 2013 WL 388169 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 2, 2013)

Representative Matters

  • Obtained motion to dismiss in a case held before the Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Commission wherein opposing plaintiff-claimant alleged they were owed unpaid benefits; the Court agreed that there was a lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the Ripeness Doctrine, and granted dismissal in favor of our client
  • Obtained a favorable ruling by the Trial Commissioner in defense of a claim for temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits after prevailing on defense that claimant was terminated for cause
  • Defended a steel manufacturer against claims asserted by multiple subcontracts relative to the principal employer doctrine, C.G.S. Sect. 31-291
  • Defended a hotel against a claim for survivor’s benefits asserted by claimant’s surviving spouse
  • Defended an employer relative to an occupational disease claim regarding kidney cancer
  • Defended an employer relative to an occupational disease claim relative to asbestosis
  • Defended condominium association and managing agent against claim for personal injuries relative to alleged defective condition