What's Hot in Workers' Comp
New Jersey Appellate Court affirms denial of motion for medical and/or temporary disability benefits based upon petitioner’s credibility issues and failure to establish objective evidence.
Richard Farhat v. Joe Leone’s, No. A-1311-21 (App. Div. Mar. 9, 2023)
April 1, 2023
The petitioner sustained a slip and fall while working for the respondent in December 2017. The petitioner reported the incident but failed to identify any injuries. Approximately three months later, he sought treatment and was provided treatment with regard to the neck.
The petitioner filed a claim petition, alleging injuries to the neck, back and wrist. The respondent filed an answer to the claim petition, leaving the petitioner to provide proofs regarding the nature and extent of injury or disease.
The petitioner filed a motion for medical and/or temporary disability benefits, requesting treatment to the low back based upon his expert’s recommendation. The respondent’s expert evaluated the petitioner and noted degenerative changes only, and this expert opined that it was difficult to identify causal relationship. The respondent denied the request for treatment.
At trial, the petitioner’s expert testified that the petitioner’s low back injury was the result of the fall in December 2017. However, he admitted his findings were based upon the petitioner’s version of events only as his initial report was issued without the benefits of medical records. He noted that he subsequently reviewed records, but not the MRI films. The respondent’s expert testified that it was unlikely that severe back pain would not present until four months after the injury. Further, he testified that the petitioner was a poor historian and was unable to provide details of dates, what happened, or timing of events. The respondent’s expert further noted that there was no objective evidence of a traumatic event, such as edema, swelling, or tearing, seen on the diagnostic studies. As such, he could not casually relate the petitioner’s injury to the fall of December 2017.
In its decision denying the motion for medical and/or temporary disability benefits, the court noted that the petitioner recounted different versions of the accident throughout the medical records and that various providers noted he was a poor historian and unreliable in providing information. The court further pointed to the petitioner’s inability to recall dates and contradictions in his testimony regarding the mechanism of injury and timing of complaints in finding him not to be a credible witness.
The court also differentiated between the expert findings and testimony. The court noted that the petitioner’s expert did not review medical records during his initial examination, in which he found a causal relationship, and subsequently failed to review the MRI films. The court found the respondent’s expert to be much more credible as he specialized in treatment of the spine, used results of the diagnostic tests to support his conclusions, and answered questions clearly, directly and with great detail.
The court ultimately found that the petitioner failed to establish by objective, reasonable evidence supported by facts in the record, that the need for additional treatment regarding a work-related injury to the back exists. The court issued an order denying the petitioner’s motion, and an appeal was filed.
The Appellate Court found no errors in the findings of the workers’ compensation judge. Credible evidence was noted in the record to support the judge’s credibility findings as to the parties’ experts. The Appellate Court affirmed the decision.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No. 4, April 2023, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal 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. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.
