Switch to ADA Accessible Theme
Close Menu
Home > All Attorneys > John W. Tomasik

John W. Tomasik is a partner who has been practicing law in Michigan since 2004. He has extensive experience in both civil and administrative litigation focusing on the defense of employers, insurance companies and self-insureds in the workers’ compensation arena throughout the state of Michigan. John is well versed in the defense of school districts, hospitals and municipalities. He also has vast experience in the manufacturing, transportation and retail industries. John also regularly conducts seminars for adjusters and claims specialists on Michigan Workers’ Compensation law throughout the country.

Additionally, John represents one of the nation’s largest grocers defending its workers’ compensation matters. John is both an aggressive and effective litigator as well as a strong voice for his clients during facilitations when early resolution of a case is most desirous.

John is a graduate of the University of Michigan and Michigan State University College of Law. As a student, he served as an intern at the Michigan Department of Attorney General. Born and raised in Sterling Heights, Michigan, John currently lives with his wife, Kate, along with his son and daughter in West Bloomfield, Michigan.

  • American Bar Association
  • Michigan Self Insurers’ Association
  • University of Michigan Alumni Association
  • Workers’ Compensation Section of the State Bar of Michigan – Council Member
Trial and Case Highlights
  • John recently handled a case involving the death of a worker as a result of an infection contracted in the hospital after a reconstructive hip surgery due to a work related fall. The plaintiff’s estate was demanding over $1,000,000 in damages including future lost wages payable to the plaintiff’s dependent wife, funeral expenses, and nearly $500,000 in medical bills. At facilitation, John was successful in having the claims of the medical providers dismissed due to lack of proper standing. In addition, he provided evidence that the plaintiff’s wife earned income and held significant assets, proving that she was not a total dependent. John also convinced the magistrate that the present day value of a lump sum payment to plaintiff’s estate for future wage loss covering plaintiff’s alleged remaining years of work was far less than the $600,000 that the plaintiff was demanding. Ultimately, the case settled in its entirety for less than twenty percent of plaintiff’s demand.
  • In a case where the plaintiff claimed frostbite while installing satellite dishes, John exposed the fact that the plaintiff was a drug seeker. He uncovered numerous emergency room visits in a short period of time, in which the plaintiff sought pain medication for a variety of reasons. The treating physician was unaware of the situation; and at the end of the deposition after plaintiff’s counsel rested, John asked the vital question, “Did you see the plaintiff in any capacity after his final visit?” The doctor revealed that about a month after his last visit, the plaintiff returned claiming that his pain medication supply was eaten by his neighbor’s dog and needed a refill. The plaintiff’s attorney ended up settling the case for a nuisance value, even though he initially asked for $75,000.