Susan Parzymieso of our office prevailed on an issue of medical treatment when the treating doctor made a hasty conclusion of causal relationship without knowing all the facts. The claimant was a police officer who was injured by a gunshot in 2003. Among his many injuries from that episode was his right leg. He underwent many surgeries with treatment ending about three years after the accident. After a lapse of 18 years, he returned for treatment to his right leg in May 2024. X-rays showed arthritis of the knee. The claimant began undergoing injections and there was discussion of the need for knee replacement surgery. The treating doctor causally related his current treatment to the 2003 injury.
Representing the insurance carrier on the risk in the 2003 injury, Susan took the testimony of the claimant and discovered that he had four other work-related injuries to the right knee between 2006 and 2013. Susan then deposed to the treating doctor who, upon learning of the intervening injuries, admitted the issue of causal relationship is uncertain and that the intervening injuries complicated the question of causal relationship. He also agreed that the level of arthritis found in 2024 is no different than what could be found in someone the claimant’s age who did not have a history of trauma.
The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge agreed with Susan’s assessment and found that the claimant did not satisfy his burden of proving to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the need for treatment in 2024 was causally related to the 2003 claim. Susan’s careful development of the record prevented our client from paying the price for the uninformed opinion of the treating doctor.
