LOIS attorney, Jeremy Janis, successfully argued for the disallowance of a consequential back claim for an established knee injury. Attorney Janis elicited testimony from the Claimant that he had pain to the back two weeks prior to the alleged consequential injury, which was pivotal in obtaining the disallowance. The Claimant had an accepted injury to the right knee after being up and down with product. The Claimant subsequently returned to work light duty and was set for surgery on his right knee. A few weeks prior to the scheduled surgery, the Claimant alleged a pain in his lower back, alleging that his right knee buckled as a result of the established injury, causing his back to jolt.
The Claimant’s testimony was taken and the Claimant testified that the injury took place while he was walking on a ramp. He conceded that he had been feeling pain in the back were two weeks prior. Once testimony. Once testimony was complete, attorney Janis argued that the Claimant’s testimony was incredible and that the record contains numerous contradictions as to the mechanism of injury. He pointed to one report noted that the Claimant fell on stairs. Attorney Janis noted that the history provided to the IME was inconsistent compared to the medical record and the Claimant’s testimony. Attorney Janis further argued that the Claimant’s testimony was inconsistent with regard to prior injury to the back, seeking for a disallowance.
The Law Judge ultimately noted the inconsistencies cites by Attorney Janis as a basis for the disallowance. As a result of the favorable outcome, the Claimant is not entitled to the treatment to the back and exposure remains limited to schedule loss of use aware.