The First District Court of Appeal was not persuaded by the argument that listing the left knee as an accepted body part on the pre-trial stipulation constituted acceptance of the left knee condition.

The claimant, a firefighter, suffered a work-related injury to his left knee in 1997. However, he treated on his own, including two surgeries on the left knee. The claimant returned to work full time, ran 2.5 miles per day and played competitive softball with no further treatment for the left knee after 2001. The claimant had other work-related accidents for other body parts and testified that he took pain medication prescribed for a neck injury to treat his knee pain. Then in 2018, his doctor recommended bilateral knee replacements due to osteoarthritis. The claimant chose to proceed under his private insurance, but he also filed a petition for benefits, seeking ongoing treatment for the left knee, along with attorney’s fees and costs.

In the pre-trial stipulation, the employer/carrier agreed that the left knee was a condition related to a work accident and authorized a physician. The employer/carrier also asserted major contributing cause, and other defenses, and that “the treatment requested is no longer related to the work place condition.” The evidence at trial demonstrated the claimant had a lengthy history of knee problems long before the 1997 accident and, by that time, had extensive grade IV chondromalacia and osteoarthritis.

The judge rejected the claimant’s 120-day-rule argument because the employer/carrier had never provided any benefits after the 1997 accident. The judge ruled that the date of accident was not the major contributing cause of the need for further left knee treatment.

The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the judge’s ruling and was not persuaded by the claimant’s argument that listing the left knee as an accepted body part on the pre-trial stipulation constituted acceptance of the claimant’s left knee condition.

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 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 © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, 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.}