CP# 2000-28142, 2002-24969, 2002-26343, 2002-24967 (2003). RODERICK WALDEN,Petitioner vs. EXCEL CONSTRUCTION and DESIGN CO., J. SPERANZA BRICKWORK, P and C CONSTRUCTION AND HALL'S CONSTRUCTION,Respondent.

• Court: New Jersey

New Jersey Workers Compensation 2003. CP# 2000-28142, 2002-24969, 2002-26343, 2002-24967 (2003). RODERICK WALDEN,Petitioner vs. EXCEL CONSTRUCTION and DESIGN CO., J. SPERANZA BRICKWORK, P and C CONSTRUCTION AND HALL'S CONSTRUCTION,Respondent CP# 00-28142; 02-24967; 02-24969; 02-26343 Walden v. Excel Construction and Design Co., et al.STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION UNION COUNTYC.P. 2000 - 28142 2002 - 24969 2002 - 26343 2002 - 24967 RODERICK WALDEN,Petitionervs.EXCEL CONSTRUCTION and DESIGN CO., J. SPERANZA BRICKWORK, P and C CONSTRUCTION AND HALL'S CONSTRUCTION,RespondentDECISION ON MOTION FOR MEDICAL andTEMPORARY DISABILITY BENEFITSAPPEARANCES:For the Petitioner: GARCES and GRABLER, ESQS., WILLIAM N. GRABLER, ESQ., appearing.For the Respondent EXCEL CORPORATION: FREEMAN, BARTON, HUBER, and SACKS, ESQS., DEBORAH C. GOTTUSO, ESQ., appearing and on the brief.For the Respondent J. SPERANZA BRICKWORK: BIANCAMANO and DiSTEPHANO, ESQ., JAMES PASSANTINO, ESQ., appearing and on the brief.For the Respondent P and C CONSTRUCTION: WEBER, GOLDSTEIN, GREENBERG and GALLAGHER, ESQS., JOSEPH BORUCKI, ESQ., appearing and on the brief.For the Respondent HALL CONSTRUCTION: THOMAS H. GREEN, ESQ., RICHARD J. RIORDAN, ESQ., appearing and on the reply brief.; FRANK J. KUNZIER, ESQ., JOSEPH RACIOPPI, ESQ. appearing and on the brief.LESLIE A. BERICH, J.W.C.This matter comes before the court on petitioner's motion for medical and temporary benefits. On December 3, 2001, an Order Approving Settlement was entered awarding petitioner thirty five percent (35%) of partial total for orthopedic and neurologic disabilities for a low back injury against the employer-respondent Excel Construction and Design Co. A review and modification of the Formal Award against Excel Construction and Design Co. [hereinafter Excel], CP 2002 - 28142, alleged that petitioner's condition had worsened. An Answer Statement was filed which denied the need for additional treatment. Excel, via its carrier, Guard Insurance Group, denied petitioner additional medical treatment.(fn1) The following claim petitions were also filed: As to J. Speranza Brickwork [hereinafter Speranza], CP 2002-24969, in which occupational injuries due to repetitive movements from May 2001 to February 2002 were alleged. An Answer denying these allegations was filed by Speranza. As to P and C Construction [hereinafter PandC], CP 2002 - 26343, in which occupational injuries due to repetitive movements from February 19, 2002 to March 5, 2002 were alleged. An Answer denying these allegations was filed by PandC. As to Hall Construction Co. [hereinafter Hall or Hall Construction], CP 2002 - 24967, in which occupational injuries due to repetitive movements from March 5, 2002 to April 26, 2002 were alleged. An Answer denying these allegations was filed by Hall. A Notice of Motion for Temporary and Medical Benefits was filed on September 19, 2000 as to each of the petitioner's aforementioned pleadings. The core issue before the court is, where petitioner suffered a compensable accident and received an award for partial total disability, whether, thereafter, petitioner's injuries were aggravated, accelerated or exacerbated in order that temporary and medical benefits should be provided, and if so, whether the responsibility for same should be borne by petitioner's initial employer-respondent, a subsequent employer-respondent or apportioned among the respondents. Petitioner was initially employed as a brick mason with Excel, where his duties constituted laying brick or block. On June 28, 2000, he was involved in a work-related accident wherein he injured his back. Subsequently, petitioner received an award of thirty five percent (35%) of partial total for orthopedic and neurologic disabilities for his low back injury as a result, in part, of permanent residuals from a laminotomy, foraminotomy, decompression at L4-L5 and excision of central disc herniation L5-S1, right. Following petitioner's recovery from the surgery, he was medically released to return to his job as a brick mason. Through his union, from May 2001 to February 7, 2002, petitioner began employment as a brick mason with Speranza.(fn2) During this entire time, petitioner was laying twelve-inch block weighing approximately 80 to 90 pounds which required two men to place. Petitioner would lay 200 to 350 blocks a day.(fn3) At this time, petitioner claimed that he experienced pain which he alleged was similar to the pain he experienced prior to his surgery. He testified that on a scale of 1-10, 10 being the maximum, he suffered pain in the range from 4 to 6.(fn4) Said pain would start in his back and radiate down his right leg down to the ankle.(fn5) Petitioner further testified that he was not one hundred percent (100%) and that he had good days and bad days. Overall, he claimed his pain became worse during his employment with Speranza. Despite the increased pain, petitioner continued to work, as he testified, "cause I had to work."(fn6) In fact, petitioner did not miss any days from Speranza and recalled that he may have put in some overtime. According to the petitioner, he self medicated with over the counter pain relievers. No medical treatment was sought or provided during his employment with Speranza. Petitioner testified that he had limited movement upon arising in the morning and that his back was stiff at the end of his work day. He occasionally placed a cold pack on his back.(fn7) Petitioner claimed, however, that he never advised Speranza of this pain. Upon completion of the Speranza job, petitioner immediately sought work again through his union. From February 26, 2002 through March 5, 2002, petitioner was employed as a brick mason with PandC.(fn8) Petitioner's duties with this respondent were similar, in that he still laid brick/block. Although, petitioner claimed his work area was smaller; he described same as "like a little tight-squeeze."(fn9) According to the petitioner, his pain worsened at PandC. Nonetheless, he continued to work despite the pain, and never missed a day from his job. Petitioner continued to self medicate and use cold packs. At PandC, petitioner testified that he advised his co-workers of his prior back injury.(fn10) Petitioner worked to the job's conclusion at PandC and then...