20-11WC. Namir Puric v. Dunkin Donuts.

• Court: Vermont

Vermont Workers Compensation 2011. 20-11WC. Namir Puric v. Dunkin Donuts Namir Puric v. Dunkin Donuts(July 29, 2011)STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOROpinion No. 20-11WCBy: Phyllis Phillips, Esq. Hearing OfficerFor: Anne M. Noonan CommissionerState File No. Z-59994OPINION AND ORDERHearing held in Montpelier, Vermont on March 9, 2011 Record closed on April 12, 2011 APPEARANCES:Namir Puric, pro se Eric Johnson, Esq., for Defendant ISSUE PRESENTED: 1. Did Defendant appropriately discontinue Claimant's temporary total disability benefits on end medical result grounds? 2. .Are Claimant's current symptoms, need for medical treatment and/or alleged disability causally related to his February 6, 2008 work injury? 3. Has Claimant willfully made false statements and/or representations so as to justify forfeiture of his right to workers' compensation benefits under 21 V.S.A. §708(a)? EXHIBITS: Joint Exhibit I: Medical records Defendant's Exhibit A: Deposition of Locke Bryan, M.D., February 17, 2009 Defendant's Exhibit B: Surveillance video DVDs Defendant's Exhibit C: Deposition of Namir Puric, February 6, 2009(fn1) Defendant's Exhibit D: Police incident report, August 9, 2008 Defendant's Exhibit E: Chittenden Criminal Division records Defendant's Exhibit F: Employment application, December 4, 2007 CLAIM: Additional workers' compensation benefits to which Claimant proves his entitlement as causally related to his February 6, 2008 work injury. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Claimant was an employee and Defendant was his employer as those terms are defined in Vermont's Workers' Compensation Act. 2. Judicial notice is taken of all relevant forms and correspondence contained in the Department's file relating to this claim. 3. Claimant worked for Defendant as a baking finisher. His job involved preparing and decorating doughnuts. Claimant's Work Injury and Subsequent Course 4. On February 6, 2008 Claimant experienced groin pain while lifting a 50-pound bag of powdered sugar. The following day he presented to the Fletcher Allen Health Care (FAHC) emergency department for treatment. In listing Claimant's symptoms, the notes for that encounter specifically state, "No back pain." Claimant was diagnosed with a right groin strain and possible inguinal hernia, for which he was advised to follow up with a surgeon. 5. On March 3, 2008 Claimant presented to Dr. Hebert for a surgical consult. Dr. Hebert doubted that Claimant's groin pain was due to a hernia, and suspected instead that he had pulled a muscle in the area. Notably, on physical examination Dr. Hebert reported that Claimant looked well, could stand straight and had no back tenderness. 6. Claimant sought treatment thereafter with his primary care providers, first Dr. Brooklyn and later Dr. Bryan. Over the course of time he began to complain of severe, disabling low back pain, with radiating symptoms into his lower extremities bilaterally. Diagnostic imaging studies have failed to reveal any disc herniation or other pathology sufficient to account for these symptoms. At this point, their etiology is unclear. 7. In relating the history of his injury to his providers, and also in his sworn deposition testimony, Claimant asserted that his low back and leg symptoms came on immediately after the February 6, 2008 lifting incident. This version of events is directly contradicted by both the contemporaneous emergency department record and by Dr. Hebert's examination, and on those grounds I find it is not credible. 8. Claimant's deposition testimony is rife with other inconsistencies. He testified that he had never sought treatment for lower back or leg complaints prior to the February 2008 incident, but his medical records very clearly indicate otherwise. He asserted that he had never suffered from depression until after he began experiencing chronic low back...