The Freibott Law Firm was recently successful in pursuing a claim for permanent impairment benefits on behalf of one of our clients. Our client was working as a Paratransit Operator for the State of Delaware, through its subsidiary, DART. Our client was attacked by a patient on the bus. Our client sustained injuries to his head, neck, and shoulder from the December of 2014 work incident. Our client was a very credible witness. He has worked his entire adult life. He has worked for DART for 8 years. He also had worked for CSX Railroad in Atlanta; as a truck driver in Baltimore; and was honorably discharged from the Army. He is also currently an assistant Pastor at his local church. The Board found that our client was credible in his testimony in this case. The Industrial Accident Board also found that the credibility of Claimant’s expert, Dr. Meyers, was much more persuasive than that of the Employer’s expert, Dr. Tadduni. The Industrial Accident Board found that Dr. Meyers performed a much more thorough examination and followed the mandates of the 5th Edition of the AMA Guidelines. The Industrial Accident Board found that Dr. Tadduni was not familiar on how to use the guides. Moreover, the Industrial Accident Board found that Dr. Tadduni failed to perform a complete and thorough examination whereas Dr. Meyers’ examination was complete and thorough. The Industrial Accident Board also found that even though Dr. Tadduni did not perform his examination properly, the results of his examination and range of motion testing were very similar to that of Dr. Meyers. However, it was Dr. Tadduni’s comment about our client that caused controversy at the Board. Dr. Tadduni alleged that our client was a “malingerer.” After providing evidence to the Board that our client had worked all his life and that he testified credibly, our client advised that Board that he took the allegation of malingering personally. It was argued the only reason that Dr. Tadduni lowered the bar to use the term “malingerer” was due to the fact that he had no other explanation as to why the Claimant had ongoing pain and had range of motion deficits and strength deficits. Clearly, as argued by our firm, Dr. Tadduni was no more than a typical insurance company doctor. Accordingly, the Board agreed with our arguments and found that our client was entitled to permanent impairment benefits; a reimbursement of his expert witness fee with Dr. Meyers; and our firm was entitled to an attorney’s fee to be paid by the carrier. (Ryan v. State of Delaware,Hearing No.: 1421859 Date of Decision: August 5, 2016)
Related posts