Successfully prosecuted a termination petition in a matter involving a registered nurse, who sustained a lower back work-related injury. She was employed by a national healthcare company and was injured as the result of riding in a bus. The Workers’ Compensation Judge accepted the defendant’s argument that the nurse was fully recovered as of an initial physical medicine and rehabilitation IME. The Judge accepted that the nurse did not sustain any additional injuries to her cervical spine, and or aggravation of a pre-existing lower back condition, which was based upon diagnostic studies from both before and after the date of injury, which defendant established failed to show any substantial change in nurse’s lumbar spine. As a result of the decision, the client experienced a significant cost savings and could be eligible for a sizable recovery from the supersedeas reimbursement fund.  

Workers’ Compensation Judge found that the defendant/employer satisfied its burden of proving that a variety of medications, including Lidoderm patches, Zolpidem (aka Ambien), Cymbalta, Omeprazole, OxyContin and Carisoprodol (aka Soma), were unreasonable and unnecessary treatment, as prescribed by the employee’s treating neurologist. As the result of this decision, the defendant/employer experienced an immediate significant cost savings of thousands of dollars, which, over the life of the claim, could result in a savings of in excess of $70,000, possibly more.

Successfully defended an international shipping company against a Claim Petition, in which the employee alleged that he sustained an umbilical hernia as a cumulative result of lifting and carrying packages over time. The employee sought wage loss and medical benefits from the date of injury and ongoing. In denying the Claim Petition, the Judge found the employee’s testimony to be incredible given the temporal proximity of the worker’s symptoms with him recently helping a family member move. The Judge questioned the employee’s assertions that he lifted only light items during the move. The Judge also found the employee's medical expert testimony not believable to the extent that it suggested that the employee's umbilical hernia was causally related to his occupational duties. The Judge specifically found the defense medical expert’s testimony credible. Given the employee’s notable compensation rate, the win resulted in substantial savings for the client and eliminated the potential for ongoing benefits. She wrote the brief for this matter.