Read Full Decision Here
Excerpts
Claimant testified that his May 17, 2010 accident occurred at 2:00 in the afternoon. (Tr. 13). He was descending a ladder and missed his footing where the extension ladder connected; he went down a few rungs and his left knee caught, it hyper-extended and his right leg took the “brunt of the fall.” (Tr. 13-14). Claimant stated he was wearing a hard hat, safety vest, safety glasses, gloves, and work boots. He testified the safety vest was not a flotation device, but he did wear a flotation device if he had the opportunity to fall in the water. (Tr. 14-15). Just before falling, his arms were positioned around chest or naval level, and when he finished falling, his hands were holding on above his head. (Tr. 15-16). Claimant, upon falling, felt pain and burning throughout his left knee and left thigh. He began to feel discomfort in his back the night of the accident and could not sleep on his right side; he had to lay flat on his back. (Tr. 16). He testified that he still must sleep flat on his back. The pain in Claimant’s left knee was the worst, “it was swollen and it like – it was like it had its
own heartbeat.”
Employer has not rebutted Claimant’s prima facie case for his right knee injury. Employer argues that Claimant’s right knee injury is not related to his work accident because Claimant did not report right knee pain for one year past the accident. However, if physical therapy on Claimant’s left knee brought on his right knee symptoms, it is logical and convincing that Claimant began complaining nearly a year after the accident, or about a month after surgery on his left knee. Claimant noted that he felt the pain initially while doing squats in physical therapy. Dr. Tomlinson attributed the pain to overcompensating for his left leg. Thus, Claimant’s right knee was injured or aggravated during rehabilitation of his left knee injury. Also, Employer argues that Dr. Tomlinson opined the accident was not the cause of Claimant’s right knee issues, but that physical therapy added pressure on his right knee and increased the symptoms. Indeed, Dr. Tomlinson testified that Claimant likely already had a degenerative right knee. However, this only supports the argument that Claimant’s right knee symptoms flowed naturally and unavoidably from the left knee injury; the condition of Claimant’s left knee aggravated his right knee.
Conclusion
Dr. Seigel was the only physician in the record who opined that Claimant’s lumbar condition was not work related. He too examined the MRI taken on January 20, 2011, but stated that he saw no bulging at L2-3 or a right foraminal disc herniation at L5-S1 with impingement on exiting nerve root. He thought that Claimant’s low back injury was not traumatic, because he did not complain to a physician in the record for two months post-accident. First, the bulging noted by Dr. Gutstein was found at L4-L5, not L2-3 as noted by Dr. Seigel in his report. Second, Dr. Seigel was the only physician to conclude the accidents were not related. Claimant explained that he did not initially complain about his back pain because he was worried about his more painful left knee. Logically, when his back pain increased in severity, he reported it to Dr. Ma. Claimant stated that he had no back pain prior to the accident. Based on the great weight of the medical evidence, I find that Claimant sustained a compensable lumbar injury on May 17, 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment