Petitioner does not meet his legal burden of proving increased disability.

As to the testimony of the petitioner’s and the respondent’s medical experts, the Judge of Compensation found that, despite a finding of over 100 percent disability on a combined basis, the petitioner’s expert’s report contained many objective findings evidencing no change in condition since his prior award. Rather, the judge found that the respondent’s expert’s finding of no increase in disability was more credible, based as it was on the objective medical findings. After considering the petitioner’s testimony, as well as the testimony of the medical experts, the judge denied the petitioner’s claim. This appeal ensued. In affirming the judge’s ruling, the Appellate Division relied on Perez v. Pantasote, Inc., 95 N.J. 105 (1984). In Perez, the court held that a claimant must satisfy the general principles of workers’ compensation law, which require that disability be established by appropriate objective evidence and cannot be based solely upon subjective complaints of a present level of incapacity. The Appellate Division concluded there was more than sufficient proof in the record to sustain the Judge of Compensation’s conclusion that the petitioner did not meet his legal burden of proving increased disability.

^{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2017}

^{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2017 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}