CP# 2006-15314 (2009). IVAN PUCHA Petitioner v. TWIN OAKS BLOC Respondent.

CourtNew Jersey
New Jersey Worker's Compensation 2009. CP# 2006-15314 (2009). IVAN PUCHA Petitioner v. TWIN OAKS BLOC Respondent NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATIONCP # 2006-15314IVAN PUCHA Petitioner, v. TWIN OAKS BLOC RespondentDECISION DATE: JULY 1, 2009PLACE: NEW BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY BEFORE: THE HONORABLE VIRGINIA M. DIETRICH ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISING JUDGE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEARANCES:LAW OFFICE OF JAY WEGODSKY, ESQUIRE BY: JAY WEGODSKY, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONERSTEVENS and SCHWAB BY: MICAHEL MIZIN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT REPRESENTING AIGLAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM BARRETT BY: ANN DEBELLIS, ESQUIRE REPRESENTING NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERSJOHN F. TRAINOR, INC. BY: INGRID BENNETT, C.S.R LICENSE NO: 30X1100212500THE COURT: This is the matter of Ivan Pucha vs. Twin Oaks Bloc, Claim Petition 2006-15314. May I have appearances, please? MR. WEGODSKY: Good morning, your Honor, Jay wegodsky appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Pucha. MR. MIZIN: Good morning, your Honor, Michael Mizin on behalf of Twin Oaks Bloc, as insured by AIG. MS. DEBELLIS: Ann DeBellis on behalf of the Respondent, as insured by New Jersey Manufacturers. THE COURT: Is there anything before I render my decision? MR. MIZIN: No, your Honor. MS. DEBELLIS: No, your Honor. THE COURT: This is my decision in the matter of Ivan Pucha vs. Twin oaks Bloc in Claim Petition 2006-15314. The Petitioner filed a petition against the Respondent on May 30th, 2006. He claimed exposure to repetitive lifting, bending, carrying and the movement of heavy objects from the start of his employment in January of 1998 through the filing of the complaint. The original claim petition was filed against the Respondent as insured by New Jersey Manufacturers. New Jersey Manufacturers was on the risk from March 23, 2004 through March 22, 2007. Thereafter, the Petitioner amended the claim petition to include a claim against AIG for an occupational exposure from January of 1998 through the end of AIG's coverage. The Petitioner also added a reference in the amendment to an accident of January 9th, 2004, in the amended claim petition. The claim petition gives no information as to the circumstances surrounding the accident. The original petition and the amended petition claim the same extent and character of injury; that is, loss of usefulness of bilateral shoulders and arms, neck and back. AIG insured Twin Oaks Bloc from March 23, 2003 to March 23, 2004. NJM and AIG both filed answers to the claim petition and amended petition denying the claims. Thereafter, the matter came before me for settlement conference. A settlement was not reached and a pretrial memorandum was executed. The pretrial memorandum referenced the accident date of January 9th, 2004, and the occupational claim. At issue was notice, exposure, knowledge, causal relationship, injuries and permanent disability. The Petitioner included the bill of Dr. Mitchell Auerbach on the pretrial form. Dr. Auerbach, a chiropractor, had submitted a bill for treatment rendered to the Petitioner in the amount of $10,636. At the time of the entry of the pretrial memorandum, it was contemplated that Drs. Horowitz and Gross would have to testify. Subsequently, the parties agreed to submit this matter for my determination on the reports of the doctors. The Petitioner testified that he began work at Respondent, Twin...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT