LOIS Associate Scott A. Grossman obtained a disallowance victory in a New York Workers’ Compensation claim. The Claimant alleged injury to the right shoulder while attempting to obtain a heavy box of cucumbers located on a high shelf in a walk-in cooler. The claim was denied when a medical record came to light in which the doctor recorded that the Claimant actually injured her right shoulder about a month prior when a dog pulled on a leash that she was holding. Upon being confronted with the report at a pre-hearing conference, the Claimant alleged that the doctor “found something else” to write in the history because he did not accept Workers’ Compensation. She further alleged that she was “forced” to see that doctor. The Claimant also stated that she reported the incident to an assistant store manager on the same day as her alleged May 29, 2023, incident, further confirming her story.
During his deposition, Mr. Grossman cross-examined the Claimant’s initial treating doctor. He testified that, although he personally had not treated Workers’ Compensation patients in years, his office did accept coverage. The doctor further testified that he contemporaneously recorded the history given to him by the Claimant (the dog leash pulling incident) and, if the Claimant had reported a work-related incident to him, he would have included it in the history. The doctor also stated that the type of shoulder injury sustained by the Claimant was consistent by the forward and downward pulling motion of a leash being pulled by a dog.
At trial, Mr. Grossman cross-examined the Claimant. The Claimant again testified that she reported the incident the same day as her accident, and the doctor she first saw did not accept Workers’ Compensation. She explained that she told him about an incident that happened about a year earlier when a dog pulled on a leash causing her to fall. She further testified that she did not injure her right shoulder or obtain any treatment due to that incident. Then, Mr. Grossman presented the assistant store manager, who testified that it was the store’s regular practice to immediately document a claim in the system upon an incident being reported. The assistant store manager also testified that she had no reason to question the Claimant’s story about a work-related injury because she had no knowledge of any other incident.
Following trial testimony and summations, the Law Judge disallowed the claim due to the inconsistent histories of the incident and the credible testimony of the Claimant’s initial treating doctor. The Claimant appealed the Law Judge’s decision on the basis that her story was consistent about a work-related injury and her treatment records (excepting the first doctor she saw) were unwavering in their histories and causal relationship opinions. Attorney Grossman’s rebuttal contended that being consistent with telling a lie after the truth of the matter was uncovered was not a basis to overturn disallowance of the claim. The rebuttal set forth, in detail, the actual timeline of events, the documentary evidence, and the demonstrable lies told by the Claimant. The Board Panel ultimately affirmed the disallowance in its entirety, closing the case with prejudice.