CP# 2009-1472 (2010). Mauricio Moscoso, Petitioner, vs. Chief Fire Equipment and Service Co., Respondent.

• Court: New Jersey

New Jersey Workers Compensation 2012. 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...