The Freibott Law Firm was recently successful in its prosecution of a worker’s compensation matter on behalf of its clients. Our client was employed at Men’s Wearhouse and was injured on May 10, 2016. Our client climbed a ladder to work on some wiring issues when he fell to the floor from approximately the third or fourth rung onto his back. Our client proceeded to treat at the Eden Hill Walk In Center complaining of, amongst other things, back pain. Our client had not yet retained our office and was having trouble finding a doctor to treat him as the worker’s compensation claim was not officially acknowledged by the worker’s compensation insurance carrier. Our client attempted to return to the Eden Hill Walk In Center but was refused treatment because there was no acknowledged claim. Our client then proceeded to Occupational Health where, again, he was turned away as there was no approval from the worker’s compensation carrier. Our client retained our firm approximately two months after the injury and we proceeded to set him up with one of the best orthopedic surgeons in Delaware. According to hisorthopaedic surgeon, Dr. James Zaslavsky, our client sustained a serious disc injury in the fall. The worker’s compensation insurance company retained two experts, Dr. Eric Schwartz in Dover, a general orthopaedic surgeon, and Dr. Dheer, a radiologist, in New Jersey. Dr. Dheer, upon cross examination, admitted that he never reviewed any medical record other than the MRI report. He further admitted that he did not even read the actual MRI film of the low back but was able to testify, through the report, that there was “no fracture, contusion, ligament/tendon sprain, muscle strain, hematoma, or fluid collection.” Dr. Zaslavsky, on the other hand, reviewed both the actual MRI report and film and testified, consistent with the results, that there was a “high intensity zone lesion,” which, in contradiction to what Dr. Dheer testified to, is fluid collection or edema in the back of the vertebral disc. Dr. Zaslavsky was able to circle that area of injury on the actual MRI film. Dr. Schwartz attempted to make our client’s testimony non- credible in that he pointed out that our client had numerous prior back complaints. On cross examination, however, Dr. Schwartz was forced to admit that each episode was a one-time episode where our client was given a muscle relaxant with no follow up treatment. Dr. Schwartz was also forced to admit that the several prior incidents of back pain dated back to 2006; however, the last time our client treated for any type of back problem was long before the actual work injury. Dr. Schwartz also testified that our client had incurred periods of constipation due to his medication prescribed by Dr. Zaslavsky. Dr. Zaslavsky testified that this condition never occurred and Dr. Schwartz was wrong. Upon cross examination, Dr. Schwartz, again, was forced to admit that despite references made in his report to the contrary, that our client never had any complaints of constipation due to narcotic pain medication. The Industrial Accident Board found the testimony of both Dr. Dheer and Dr. Schwartz not persuasive. In the end, the Industrial Accident Board found that our client was credible; found that Dr. Zaslavksy’s testimony was more credible and persuasive than that of Dr. Dheer and Dr. Schwartz; and found our client’s ongoing back problems and medical treatment were reasonable, necessary, and related to the original work accident. Due to our success in front of the Industrial Accident Board, it also ordered that the worker’s compensation insurance carrier pay for the expert testimony of Dr. Zaslavsky and also ordered the worker’s compensation insurance carrier to pay an attorney’s fee to our firm. (Carl Muckelroy v. Men’s Wearhouse,Hearing No.: 1448935 Date of Decision: May 15, 2017)
Related posts