CP# 2009-1472(2010). Mauricio Moscoso, Petitioner, vs. Chief Fire Equipment and Service Co., Respondent.
Court | New Jersey |
New Jersey Workers Compensation
2011.
CP# 2009-1472(2010).
Mauricio Moscoso, Petitioner, vs. Chief Fire Equipment and Service Co., Respondent
CP# 2009-1472
Moscoso v. Chief Fire Equipment and Service Co
STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATIONMauricio Moscoso, Petitioner, vs.
Chief Fire Equipment and Service Co., Respondent.RESERVED DECISION
C.P. #: 2009-1472APPEARANCES: Livingston, Siegel, Di Marzio and
Baptista, Esqs. By: Frank Di Marzio, Esq. Attorneys for
Petitioner. Braff, Harris and Sukoneck,
Esqs. By: Keith Kandel, Esq. Attorneys for
Respondent. The petitioner, Mauricio Moscoso worked for the respondent,
Chief Fire Equipment and Service Co. as a sprinkler system installer.
During the course of his employment he injured his back on 6/14/07. He
sustained orthopedic and neurological residuals consisting of a disc bulge at
L4-L5 and a herniated disc at L5-S1. Surgery ensued with a laminectomy and
discectomy performed at the L5-S1 level and a decompression at the L4-L5 level
with resulting left sided lumbar radiculopathy.
On 12/1/09 Judge Minniti approved and the petitioner accepted an
award for 27 1/2% or $36,921.
Mr. Moscoso is a young man. As of 2011 he is only 25 years old.
The surgery performed in 2007 was complicated with removal of bone, pulpous and
constricting fibers that impinge on the nerves located in the spinal canal. As
such common sense and trial experience both dictate that such an award bespeaks
a serious injury with related permanent residuals. One would therefore expect a
certain quality of complaint arising from said disability on a permanent
basis.
It is because of these complaints that Mr. Moscoso recently
filed (on 12/28/10) an application for review or modification of his formal
award seeking increased permanency benefits.
Shortly thereafter the petitioner filed a motion (on 6/14/11)
seeking temporary disability and medical benefits. The respondent refused to
voluntarily provide it. The motion was litigated with the petitioner, his
expert, Dr. Tiger and respondent's expert, Dr. Canario testifying before the
court.
I am convinced that Mr. Moscoso wants the diagnostic test and
believes that any future course of recommended treatment will improve his
medical condition and relieve his pain.
However when considering this type of an application although
the petitioner's testimony is relevant, the issue is determined by medical
opinion. The medical treatment sought must be reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial