LOIS obtained a favorable motion outcome as it relates to its New Jersey Workers’ Compensation practice. There, the Petitioner’s claim was a denied occupational claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome allegedly caused by repetitive movements while working as a pharmacist technician. This allegation came after the Petitioner had been working for a mere 90 days for the employer with repeated attendance issues. Upon answering the claim, a denial was set for lack of causal relationship. The Petitioner concurrently filed a Motion for Medical and Temporary benefits seeking treatment as well as temporary disability benefits for Petitioner’s time out of work.
Attorney Cory Benavides immediately served occupational interrogatories on Petitioner’s counsel along with an Opposition to the Motion, alleging the treatment was unauthorized and that employer would not be responsible for Petitioner’s time out of work. In conducting discovery, Mr. Benavides spoke with the employer to gather the information on Petitioner’s employment. In doing so, he was able to conclude that the Petitioner’s supervisor had been offering to accommodate his restrictions. Every time the offer was made, the Petitioner would return to the unauthorized doctor, who would then provide an updated restrictions list. However, despite the Employer’s willingness to go above and beyond with accommodating the restrictions, the Petitioner continued to refuse. Thereafter, Mr. Benavides filed a supplemental certification in support of the Opposition so as to include these communications to the Petitioner.
At the hearing, Mr. Benavides zealously argued that not only should the Motion be denied based on a deficiency on its face in that it sought a previously closed period of awards, but that there was no present recommendation for treatment. It was further argued that the Respondent was unable to prepare further defenses as the Petitioner failed to respond to the occupational interrogatories and discovery demands. Ultimately, the Judge agreed with Mr. Benavides’ arguments and dismissed the Motion for Medical and Temporary Benefits, while also denying Petitioner’s attorney’s request for fees. The Motion was closed, and the case was returned to the pre-trial list with specific instructions for the Petitioner to respond to all discovery demands by the next hearing or else risk having an Order to Compel entered against the Petitioner.
