Experience

• Successfully prosecuted a termination petition and obtained a termination of benefits. In that matter, the claimant sustained a groin injury and underwent surgery, although, continued to have ongoing complaints and pursued medical treatment. The WCJ opted to terminate compensation in accordance with an IME opinion of full recovery. In this regard, the WCJ found the IME physician to be more knowledgeable and informed in terms of claimant’s condition as compared to claimant’s medical expert, who recently commenced treatment. The WCJ specifically took note that IME physician reviewed more of claimant’s medical records, was more familiar with the medical history, treatment and details regarding claimant’s work injury and employment history. Most crucial was the fact the WCJ was persuaded by IME physician’s explanation for the claimant’s ongoing complaints, which he attributed to an unrelated urological condition, something discounted by claimant’s treating physiatrist. As a result of the decision, the client is able to avoid liability for claimant’s ongoing medical treatment, including medications, and is not responsible for reimbursement of counsel’s litigation costs which total nearly $3,000. Once the decision is final, the client will be able to pursue a sizable supersedeas reimbursement sum for medical benefits paid out over the last year.

• 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.