LOIS Attorney Bailey Ott recently secured a favorable Board Panel Decision, which affirmed a trial win in which the claimant had been found to have no disability and no permanency to the neck and back, as well as 0% SLUs for the right arm, right hand, right leg, left foot, and right foot. This case had a very high potential exposure based on the amount of injuries the claimant had sustained, but we were able to secure a finding of no permanent injuries to any of the established sites. This case was established for injuries to the bilateral knees, left hip, neck, back, right elbow, right wrist, right hip, and bilateral ankles.

Claimant’s treating physician submitted a C-4.3 finding the following SLUs: 76% left hip, 60.8% right hip, 47.5% left knee, 20% right knee, 27.5% right hand, 7.5% right elbow. In an attachment, he assessed a 22.5% SLU for the right foot. The doctor then issued an apportionment opinion for the SLUs: for the right hand he apportioned 30% to the 2016 accident and 70% to 2018; for the right elbow he apportioned 40% to 2016 and 60% to 2018; for the right hip he apportioned 40% to the 2012 accident and 60% to 2018; for the left hip he apportioned 60% to the 2012 accident and 40% to 2018; for the right knee he apportioned 20% to 2012 and 80% to 2018; for the right foot he apportioned 45% to 2012 and 55% to 2018. In the claimant’s 2012 claim, the doctor’s C-4.3 assessed a SLU of 60% for each hip and 25% for the right foot. In his C-4.3 from February of 2017, he assessed a SLU of 60% for the left hip, 73% for the right hip and 25% for the right foot. In the 2012 claim, the claimant was awarded SLUs of 55% for the right leg, 12.5% for the left leg, and 12.5% for the right foot. In the 2016 claim, the doctor’s C-4.3 assessed a SLU of 50% for the right shoulder, 12.5% for the right elbow (62.5% total for the right arm), 40% for the left shoulder, and 45% for the right wrist. In the 2016 claim, the claimant was awarded SLUs of 12.5% for the right arm, 7.5% for the right hand, and 7.5% for the left arm. Therefore, we determined an IME cover letter would be necessary to combat these high SLU findings and to attack the treating physician’s credibility, using targeted questions that highlighted discrepancies in the treating physician’s reports.

LOIS attorney Joseph Melchionne was successful in obtaining a judicial finding that newly raised body parts were time-barred under WCL Section 28, and thus disallowed from the claim. The claim was established for the claimant’s work-related injuries to his low back and for consequential depression in relation to a 2017 work accident. In November of 2019, two years and eight months after the establishment of the claim, the claimant produced a medical report diagnosing traumatic injuries to his bilateral shoulders and bilateral wrists. In 2020, the claimant raised those injuries and a law judge determined that the report constituted prima facie medical evidence (PFME) for those injuries. As such, Mr. Melchionne argued that the newly raised injuries were time-barred under WCL Section 28 and reserved the right to cross-examine the claimant on that issue.

At a recent hearing Mr. Melchionne took the claimant’s testimony regarding his treatment for his shoulders and wrists, specifically, his delay in treating for those alleged injuries and a lack of medical evidence reporting that he complained of those injuries for the first two years and eight months of the claim. During his testimony the claimant seemingly also raised his neck as a causally related injury. Following the claimant’s testimony, the attorneys were allowed to make summation arguments. Mr. Melchionne argued that the medical and testimonial evidence produced to the record clearly evinced that the claimant should be time-barred under Section 28 from proceeding with any additional claimed injuries because none of his newly raised injuries were listed in his C-3 Employee Claim Form, none of the hundreds of medical reports filed between January 2017 and November 2019 contain even the mention of any symptoms to the shoulders or wrists, the claimant’s medical evidence did not indicate that the claimant’s symptoms were raised as consequential injuries, and the claimant’s testimony was inconsistent and not credible regarding when his symptoms began and if he informed his treating doctors of same.

LOIS Attorney Bailey Ott was recently able to successfully have a bilateral carpal tunnel/wrists claim disallowed at the Pre-Hearing Conference as being time-barred. The claimant alleged injuries due to repetitive use of her hands. Her initial medical records she submitted to the Board were from August 10, 2015 and noted that the claimant had onset of carpal tunnel syndrome two months prior from overuse. On the date of the Pre-Hearing Conference Claimant’s counsel uploaded a medical report from a June 9th examination. In that medical report it was noted that the claimant had “been experiencing this since approximately 2015 while working as a program director performing repetitive activities such as excessive typing, lifting, pushing, pulling, cleaning, et cetera.” Further, in the doctor’s treatment plain he noted, “I would strongly recommend inclusion/establishment of bilateral hand/wrists due to repetitive mechanism/occupational disease due to activities performed at work as of 2015 as described.” We vehemently argued that this was proof that the claimant knew or shoulder have known that she had developed this condition as a result of her work in 2015, which was supported by the three medical reports in the Board File from 2015.

The Law Judge agreed with our position and disallowed the claim as it was time-barred. He noted that it was clear that the claimant had been experiencing these symptoms since 2015. He pointed out that the key phrase in the medical report was “while working as a program director performing repetitive activities.” The Law Judge explained that for an ODNCR claim to stand, it must be made within two years from the time the claimant was first diagnosed, or should have known that the symptoms or injury were causally related to a work related activity, which in this case the claimant clearly did know. The Law Judge disallowed the claim citing our argument that the latest the claim could have been brought was 2017, which was now three years too late.