Appellate Divisions affirms a workers’ compensation judge’s decision that the claimant’s testimony was not credible and his medical expert’s theory was not supported by objective evidence.

The Appellate Division affirmed the workers’ compensation order denying the petitioner’s motion for medical/temporary benefits. In January 2017, the petitioner injured his bilateral legs, left hip, and back in a car accident while working for the respondent, H&H Transportation, Inc. Previously, the petitioner had a history of back pain going back to 2005, with a recent CT scan in March 2016. 

The petitioner was evaluated by Dr. Anthony Parks, who recommended a second opinion because he could not explain the petitioner’s symptoms in comparison to the MRI findings. The petitioner then saw Dr. Ryan Cassilly, who found that the thoracic and lumbar sprain symptoms were related to the work injury, but the T7-8 herniation found on the MRI was not as it reflected a “long standing degenerative condition.” 

Once benefits were terminated, the petitioner then filed a claim petition and saw a neurosurgeon, Dr. Przybylski, on his own. He underwent various procedures, including surgery, and in November 2022, filed a motion for medical/temporary benefits. The petitioner, as well as the three doctors, testified.

The workers’ compensation judge found that: the petitioner’s need for treatment was not causally related; the petitioner’s testimony was not credible; Dr. Cassilly’s testimony was credible; and Dr. Przybylski’s theory was not supported by objective evidence. The petitioner appealed; however, the Appellate Division affirmed, noting the judge’s decision was supported by the record.

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 28, No. 2, February 2024, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}