Julius A. Cigna, Esq., an attorney in Cipriani & Werner, P.C.’s Mt. Laurel Office, recently obtained a dismissal with prejudice on behalf of our client.

Petitioner filed a Claim Petition in NJ Workers’ Compensation Court alleging work-related injuries caused by a fall due to light-headedness.  Specifically, Petitioner was working for our client as a landscaper.  He claimed he was dizzy and fainted, falling on his back, neck and right shoulder while he was carrying heavy cement blocks.  The claim was denied and Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion for Medical Treatment and Temporary Disability Benefits.

The parties took testimony before the Court.  Petitioner held that he did not recall many details about the accident given that he fainted, but was adamant that an incident occurred and that he had been suffering from pain since.  On defense, Respondent called a co-worker, who testified before the Court that an incident did in fact occur and that Petitioner was brought to the hospital.  However, through an examination of the medical records and emergency records admitted into evidence, it was demonstrated that Petitioner was “lethargic” and that upon his discharge, Petitioner was advised to hydrate well.  Additionally, although Petitioner initially held that he did not recall whether he had any overlapping injuries in the past, upon cross-examination Mr. Cigna established Petitioner did have pre-existing medical conditions similar to his current complaints.

The Judge noted that Petitioner must establish a causal connection between the employment and the injury based upon a “preponderance of the evidence."  Laffey v. City of Jersey City, 289 N.J. Super. 292, 303 (App. Div.), certif. denied I46 N.J. 500 (1996).  However, based upon the evidence presented, the Court found Petitioner failed to meet this burden.  The Judge additionally highlighted that Petitioner’s credibility was diminished by the testimony of Respondent’s witness.

In sum, the Court found in favor of our client and dismissed Petitioner’s claim with prejudice.  The practical effect of the Court’s decision saved our client the costs of future medical treatment, both retroactive and future indemnity benefits, along with payment of outstanding medical bills amounting to almost $40,000.00 at the time.

If you have any questions about this case, please contact Julius A. Cigna, Esq. at jcigna@c-wlaw.com or (856) 761-3800.