CP# 2003-41089 (2009). JOSEPHINE SOWINSKI, Petitioner v. BERGEN COUNTY SPECIAL SERVICES, Respondent.

• Court: New Jersey

New Jersey Worker's Compensation 2009. CP# 2003-41089 (2009). JOSEPHINE SOWINSKI, Petitioner v. BERGEN COUNTY SPECIAL SERVICES, Respondent C.P. # 2003-41089 Sowinski v. Bergen County Special ServicesNEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATIONC.P. No. 2003-41089JOSEPHINE SOWINSKI, Petitioner, v. BERGEN COUNTY SPECIAL SERVICES RespondentBEFORE: Jill M. FaderJudge of CompensationDECISIONThis is the Court's decision in the matter of Josephine Sowinski v. Bergen County Special Services, Claim Petition 2003-41089. Petitioner, a then 50-year-old custodial bus driver, alleged that on July 16, 2003 she tripped and fell going up the stairs while carrying a computer into a trailer classroom injuring her neck, shoulders and back. Respondent admitted the accident. Both parties stipulated to the following facts: the Petitioner was in the employ of the Respondent on the date alleged; her weekly wage was $705.76 per week which would give rise to a temporary disability rate of $494.03 per week and a permanent disability rate commencing at $170 per week. Although the Pre-Trial Memorandum indicated there was an issue as to temporary disability, neither party addressed the issue in their brief submitted to the court, therefore, the issue is waived and temporary disability shall be deemed adequate as paid. All authorized medical bills have been paid. There is an issue, however, as to outstanding medical bills for unauthorized treatment, and whether Petitioner's unauthorized treatment commencing in October of 2003 and continuing through the present is related to the compensable accident and necessary to cure or relieve her of her symptoms. Respondent contests the causal relationship of petitioner's injuries to the compensable accident, and, their responsibility under the Statute for Petitioner's unauthorized medical treatment. Finally, while all but one of the evaluating physicians found Petitioner to have a permanent disability, the experts do disagree as to the percentage of Petitioner's disability. Therefore, the final issue before the Court is the nature and extent of Petitioner's permanent disability as evidenced by the Pre-Trial Memorandum dated April 27, 2007 which was marked into evidence as C-1. vRegarding this particular case, I have listened to the testimony of the Petitioner and I have reviewed the medical reports and records submitted into evidence by both parties. There is no doubt that Petitioner has a permanent orthopedic disability. All the doctors agree on that. It is, however, the issue of the extent of the disability and the relationship between it and the accident which arose out of and in the course of Petitioner's employment which is the main focus of the dispute and controversy between the parties. It is on that issue, that the credibility of the Petitioner has been most affected and ultimately found to be lacking. I find petitioner's testimony to be less than credible for a number of reasons. To begin, Petitioner testified that she injured herself while taking a computer up some stairs into a mobile classroom. "As I put my foot on it (the step), I just felt something push me and I ended up hitting into the trailer itself. And as I was being pushed with that force, I heard a crunk (sic) in my back and I went down on my knees." (JS T. p.7 lines 11-15) However, the history contained in the medical records for treatment immediately following the accident make no mention of a fall. Petitioner first sees Dr. Hailey, a chiropractor that she went to on her own, who gives a history of, "Petitioner pulled left side, low back pain after lifting computer boxes." (See P-5 in evidence.) The Center for Occupational Medicine records, where she first receives authorized treatment 2 days after the accident, makes no mention of a fall either. The history noted by Petitioner on the intake sheet states, "Back injury moving computers up stairs." (See P-1 in evidence.) Dr. Tiger, Petitioner's evaluating expert gives a history of injury while lifting boxes of computer equipment. (AT T. p. 5 lines 1-8). Again, the history given to Dr. Gallick on October 24, 2003 only mentions that she (Petitioner) was carrying a box with a computer in it and she started having some neck pain, back pain, some pain into both shoulders, some radiation of pain down both lower extremities. (See P-6 in evidence.) The first time the Court can find any reference to a fall is in the records of Dr. Yu on December 1, 2003 (see P-7 in evidence.) ...