CP# 2008-15181, 2008-17175, 2008-17177 (2009). GLENN A. STEIGER, Petitioner v. BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD, Respondent.

• Court: New Jersey

New Jersey Worker's Compensation 2009. CP# 2008-15181, 2008-17175, 2008-17177 (2009). GLENN A. STEIGER, Petitioner v. BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD, Respondent CP#'s 2008-15181,17175,17177 Steiger v. Borough of RutherfordNEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABORAND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENTDIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATIONC.P. No.'s 2008-15181, 2008-17175, 2008-17177 GLENN A. STEIGER, Petitioner v. BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD, RespondentBEFORE: Jill M. Fader, Judge of Compensation DECISION This is the Court's decision in the matter of Glenn A. Steiger v. Borough of Rutherford, Claim Petitions 2008-15181, 2008-17175 and 2008-17177, which have been consolidated for purposes of the trial. These matters came before the Court as a Motion for Medical and Temporary Benefits filed on behalf of the Petitioner when Respondent cut off authorized treatment and temporary disability benefits in June 2008. At the commencement of the trial, Respondent stipulated that the Petitioner was in its' employ on the dates alleged. The parties also stipulated that Petitioner has a disability to his back and is in need of treatment. Respondent denies, however, that Petitioner sustained an injury that "arose out of and in the course of his employment" pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-7. Respondent contends that Petitioner has made too many inconsistent statements as to how and when he injured his back. At issue is the fact that Petitioner allegedly reports one accident date, and then arrives for treatment reporting a second and different accident to the medical staff. Subsequent doctor notes then discuss one accident, not both, and allegedly have Petitioner recounting differing versions of the accident. Respondent contends these inconsistent statements make Petitioner "not credible." It appears Respondent's theory of the case is that Petitioner abuses alcohol which cause him "balance problems." Respondent apparently believes Petitioner's drinking is what has really caused him to fall and injure his back, outside of the workplace. Respondent also implies that Petitioner harbors a vendetta against the Borough that has led him to file false claims calling into question Petitioners' credibility.(fn1) The parties agreed to a bifurcated trial as to the issue of liability only. The Court heard the testimony of the Petitioner and fourteen fact witnesses. Both parties submitted proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as requested by the Court (see C-2 and C-3 in evidence.) Petitioner testified that on March 13, 2008 he was riding on the back of a garbage truck when it was involved in an accident with another vehicle(fn2). The impact caused Petitioner to twist his back but he did not think he had hurt himself as a result of the accident and continued to work the rest of the day. Petitioner testified that he did notice his back bothering him as the days and weeks went on, but because he worked in a physically demanding job, he attributed it to the nature of the work.(fn3) Petitioner testified that he did not seek, nor receive, any medical treatment to his back during these ensuing weeks. Petitioner testified that by the end of the day Friday, May 9, he was noticing more pain in his back. According to Petitioner's testimony, the Borough had been short staffed that day and because it was raining the loads were heavier than usual. Petitioner rested over the weekend and returned to work that Monday May 12th. By the end of the day Monday, May 12, Petitioner's back was again bothering him after lifting and pulling water-laden cans of recyclables(fn4). Petitioner called in sick on Tuesday due to back pain, and, on Wednesday May 14, when he couldn't get out of bed due to...