Client: Community Medical Center
Brief Attorney: Michael McCaffrey, Esq.
Trial Attorney: Anne Hammill Pasqua, Esq.
**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**
The petitioner filed a Motion for Medical Treatment seeking a right total knee arthroplasty revision supported by the opinion of Dr. Post. Respondent opposed the Motion based upon the opinions of authorized provider, Dr. Arthur Mark, as well as a second doctor, Dr. Michael Sidor. Both doctors did not recommend further treatment as it was not likely to cure or relieve the petitioner of the effects of the injury under N.J.S.A. 34:15-15. There was the risk that further surgery would have a poor result. Following testimony of the petitioner and all three doctors, the judge denied the motion and petitioner appealed.
On appeal, respondent maintained that the denial was appropriate as there was more than sufficient evidence to support the judge’s opinion and in finding Dr. Sidor more credible than petitioner’s expert, Dr. Post. Respondent further argued that Dr. Mark’s opinion, as the authorized treating doctor, is entitled to greater weight than that of Dr. Post. At Oral Argument, Respondent highlighted that the medical testimony and evidence that further treatment was not only not necessary but likely to cause more harm as explained by Dr. Sidor and Dr. Mark. The appellate court agreed and affirmed. The appellate court also touched upon petitioner’s complaints being out of proportion to what one would expect in a typical patient.