Charles Winkelspecht v. Burlington County
Client: Burlington County, Berkley Risk Managers
This matter involved an accepted left knee case
stemming from a 12/7/98 slip and fall with allegations
of a derivative left foot and low back injury. The petitioner
underwent a long course of medical treatment,
which included three years of authorized treatment to
the left knee, two surgical procedures, and an additional
six months of authorized treatment for the left
foot consisting of injections, use of a TENS Unit and
pain management. No authorized care was provided
to the petitioner's low back. The respondent took the
position that the low back was not related to the original
accident. The respondent also argued if the low
back injury was related the level of disability was so
small that it is not compensable under the Workers'
Compensation Act. The respondent also took the
position that despite the fact that some medical treatment
was provided to the left foot, this injury was also
not related to the original work accident. This position
was supported by the assessment by the defense
medical expert, Dr. Bachman. The petitioner's evaluator,
Dr. Cataldo, suggested that the altered gait was
responsible for the development of both the back and
foot problems.
This matter went to a full trial, with both expert and
lay witnesses. The respondent presented testimony
of both the petitioner's direct supervisor and also the
Burlington County Supervisor of Roads, Bridges and
the Mosquito and Shade Tree Commission.
At the time the petitioner's medical expert testified,
the petitioner had been returned to work full duty. The
petitioner's medical expert was unaware of this fact
and when confronted with the fact the petitioner had
returned to his prior job, he testified that this fact does
not affect his estimates of disability, as his estimates
are made fairly independently of the individual's actual
activity levels and limitations. The judge commented
that he found Dr. Bachman much more persuasive on
all issues and was particularly concerned with the fact
that Dr. Cataldo's opinion had not predicated on the
facts as of the time he testified and that it was also not
clear whether the doctor reviewed all of the pertinent
treating medical records. The judge assessed only
25% of the statutory leg for the petitioner's left knee
injury and found that the petitioner's left foot and low
back injury was not related to the work accident. This
matter was handled by Thomas J. Mannion, Jr. and
Melissa K. Bialos completed the brief.