No. 03122178 (1999). EMPLOYEE: George Lazarou.

• Case Date: November 22, 1999
• Court: Massachusetts

Massachusetts Workers Compensation 1999. No. 03122178 (1999). EMPLOYEE: George Lazarou COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS EMPLOYEE: George Lazarou EMPLOYER: City of Peabody INSURER: City of PeabodyBOARD NO. 03122178REVIEWING BOARD DECISION (Judges Wilson, McCarthy and Smith)APPEARANCES Emmanuel N. Papanickolas, Esq., for the employee Daniel B. Kulak, Esq., for the self-insurer WILSON, J. This case is before us following a reconstruction of the hearing record pursuant to a previous reviewing board order. Lazarou v. City of Peabody, 12 Mass. Workers' Comp. Rep. 86 (1998). The report of the administrative judge, who coordinated the reconstruction, states that the reconstruction was successful and that no further reconstruction is necessary in order to properly address the issues raised by the employee's appeal. The employee, however, contends that justice requires a recommittal for hearing de novo. 1 After a review of the record, we agree with the report of the administrative judge that the reconstruction is sufficient and affirm the original hearing decision. Mr. Lazarou was a forty-year-old, married father of four minor children at the time of the hearing. He is a Greek immigrant who had completed six years of schooling in his homeland. (Dec. 3.) In 1977, he was employed by the City of Peabody as a dog officer. During the 1978 year, the City of Peabody employed him as a CETA worker. CETA positions were temporary in nature, generally lasting one year and classified as public service employment. (Dec. 3.) On June 28, 1978, while preparing to paint dog cages, the employee felt something "snap" in the back of his neck. He continued to work, despite discomfort and shooting pains from the left side of his neck to his left upper back and numbness in his left hand and fingers, until approximately December 12, 1978. (Dec. 4.) An initial claim by the employee was denied at conference. Subsequently, another claim was filed and, after hearing, the employee was awarded benefits for the injury to his left cervical and shoulder area pursuant to §§ 34 and 35A. The insurer next filed a claim to discontinue or modify the payment of benefits, but apparently no action was taken on the matter. The employee then filed a claim for § 34A benefits that was denied at conference. The employee appealed, seeking a hearing de novo. (Reconstruction report of administrative judge, 1-2, hereinafter "Report.") Both parties requested expert medical testimony by way of deposition. 2 Permission was granted and Dr. Roger S. Williams, the employee's treating neurologist, was deposed on behalf of the employee. This deposition testimony was admitted into evidence. (Dec. 2, 3.) Dr. Williams first examined the employee on May 24, 1982. (Dep. 5; Dec. 4.) The doctor stated that November 1981 myelograms had revealed a nerve root compression in the neck area, especially between the fifth and sixth vertebrae. (Dep. 6; Dec. 4.) Based on those myelograms, Dr. Williams diagnosed cervical spondylosis. (Dep. 8-9; Dec. 5-6.) Prior to Dr. Williams' initial medical exam, the employee had undergone two surgeries to his neck, which has relieved that pain "ever since." (Dep. 6; Dec.5.) Subsequently, he began to experience pain on his right side primarily in the trapezius muscle region. (Dep. 6-7; Dec. 5.) In December, 1983, Dr. Williams again examined the employee. Dr. Williams noted tenderness in the base of the neck, especially on the right side. No objective evidence of nerve root compression was found. (Dep. 10-12; Dec. 6.) The employee resisted Dr. Williams' recommendation that another myelogram be done. (Dep. 12-13; Dec. 6-7.) Dr. Williams examined the employee numerous times over the next few years. (Dep. 14, 17, 18, 19; Dec. 5-8.) In 1984 the doctor determined that cervical nerve root compression and spondylosis were not the principal difficulties with respect to the employee's right shoulder pain. (Dep. 15; Dec. 7.) Despite the prescription of numerous medications, the employee's condition had not improved. (Dep. 15-22...