Lister v. J.B. Eurell Co.

Citation234 N.J.Super. 64,560 A.2d 89
PartiesJohn LISTER, Petitioner-Respondent, v. J.B. EURELL COMPANY, Respondent-Appellant.
Decision Date22 June 1989
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division

Robert M. Gilbert, Jersey City, for respondent-appellant (Robert G. Bressler, East Orange, attorney, Robert M. Gilbert, Newark, on the brief).

Stephen Luminello, for petitioner-respondent (Chasan, Leyner, Tarrant & D'Italia, attorneys, Stephen Luminello, Jersey City, on the brief).

Before Judges O'BRIEN, SCALERA and STERN.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

SCALERA, J.A.D.

Respondent J.B. Eurell Company appeals from a workers' compensation judgment awarding petitioner John Lister total disability benefits for back injuries arising out of a work-related accident which occurred on December 3, 1985.

At the trial the parties stipulated that Lister was employed by Eurell on December 3, 1985, when he sustained the compensable accident. Thus, the issues at trial involved only the extent of the temporary disability, medical treatment and the claimed permanent disability.

Lister testified through a Yugoslavian interpreter. He related that he was born on March 29, 1948 in Yugoslavia, attended school there until the eighth grade, and emigrated to the United States at age 17. At the time of the accident, he had been employed as a truck driver by Eurell for some 2 1/2 years, and his duties included both the driving and unloading of trucks. Lister explained that he was required to unload heavy ceiling tiles and insulation materials. It was while he was unloading heavy bundles of insulation from one truck and loading them onto another that he heard the lumbosacral area of his back "crack" and immediately experienced "terrible pain." He could neither bend down nor stand up straight but did not seek medical treatment until the next day.

Petitioner apparently first saw a compensation insurance company doctor, Dr. Robert Goldstone, on December 4, 1985 and was treated by him through January 20, 1986. During this period, he was also treated by a Dr. Goulart, 1 an insurance company neurologist, and a chiropractor named Dr. McBain, who provided physical therapy during some 20 visits.

He was admitted to St. Joseph's Hospital during the week of January 7, 1986, where he was treated for the pain and placed in traction, but no surgery was performed. He was again hospitalized on January 20, 1986 for an examination, after which Dr. Goldstone and Dr. Goulart told Lister that they wanted to perform surgery on his back to alleviate his condition. Petitioner testified that he refused the recommended operation because he was afraid of being paralyzed for the rest of his life. According to him, Dr. Goulart had told him that the surgery involved a risk of paralysis which he could not guarantee would not occur. However, no expert medical evidence regarding paralysis was produced. After his release from the hospital, petitioner apparently continued to be treated by Dr. Goldstone until February 25, 1986. Thereafter, his compensation disability checks were terminated because he was no longer being treated by an "authorized" treating doctor and also because he refused to have the recommended back surgery.

Subsequently, in March 1986, without the compensation insurance company's authorization, petitioner went to see Dr. Jerome B. Margolies, who he claimed was an orthopedist and who treated his back problem with hot pads and medication. He was seeing Dr. Margolies once a week at the beginning but less frequently at the time of trial since he was feeling a "little better than ... before."

Since August 1986, petitioner has also been receiving treatment from Dr. Nicholas Marchese, a psychiatrist, for attacks of depression and nervousness which are manifested by screaming at his children, arguing with his wife and the like. The treatment consists of both medication and counseling. Petitioner explained that since his injury he has been so depressed that he has considered killing himself because of his poor health, loss of job and money, and inhibited sex life.

Because of the pain from his injuries, petitioner has never tried to work since this accident. He claims that he can only stand for 10 or 15 minutes at a time and has trouble walking up and down stairs; his left foot hurts a lot and it becomes numb approximately 30 to 40 times each day and he can only sit for 10 to 15 minutes before feeling discomfort. Regarding his present physical complaints petitioner summed it up by stating:

I'm not well. I'm still in pain. But I feel a little better than I was feeling before.

He admitted to having accidents in the past for which he received compensation benefits but denied that they involved his back. Finally, petitioner insisted that he knows only a little English and that that language is not spoken at home.

None of the doctors or therapists who treated the petitioner over the years were called as witnesses at trial. Rather the case was tried solely on the basis of petitioner's testimony and of the various experts, each of whom concededly had only limited contact with him.

The first expert witness to testify on petitioner's behalf was Paul J. Kiell, M.D., a psychiatrist who performed a neurological and neuropsychiatric examination of petitioner on February 25, 1988, during which he obtained a "history" from him. After relating his findings, Dr. Kiell opined that,

Obviously, he had a herniated disk, complaints and signs were consistent with a lumbosacral radiculopathy that were more marked on the left. Also he's on tranquilizers and antidepressants so that I felt that that masked somewhat the clinical findings but he's depressed in terms of his verbalization, in terms of the findings. Signs and symptoms are also of chronic pain syndrome, that is a person struggling with pain, they're irritable, they're tense, they're worried. He's fearful of further surgery ...

* * *

* * *

I estimated neurological disability at 60 percent of total. I estimated permanent neuropsychiatric disability at 30 percent to total. These are exclusive of the orthopedic.

The second expert witness was Dr. Earl C. Shaw, not an orthopedist but a specialist in "traumatology and sports medicine." Dr. Shaw examined petitioner on February 13, 1987. His diagnosis was,

Low back derangement with herniated disk at the L4-5 level with degenerative disk disease at the L5-S1 level with central spur encroaching upon the sac and left nerve root with bilateral sciatic neuritis.

Dr. Shaw also stated that it was reasonable for Lister to have sought treatment on his own based on his fear of the proposed surgery. The doctor concluded that petitioner "appeared to be totally disabled" from an orthopedic viewpoint. That is, Lister would not be able to go back to work as a truck driver nor would he be able to fill a job which required him to stand on his feet all day or to sit for any length of time:

The basis for that opinion is the findings that were made in the body of my report, the functional restrictions that this man has in his lower back area as evidenced by my examination, the changes that have occurred in the muscular structures of the lower back, the changes that have occurred in relationship to the vertebral bodies as well as the findings made on the CAT scan.

The final witness to testify on behalf of petitioner was Edmond A. Provder, an expert in the field of vocational training, who evaluated petitioner at his office on June 10, 1987, also without the benefit of any interpreter. He secured a history, read the medical reports and administered a battery of "standardized tests" in order to assess the effect of the physical and mental impairments on his ability to engage in competitive employment. He opined:

Based on my evaluation of Mr. Lister, it's my opinion that he demonstrates significant vocational handicaps which impede his ability to sit, stand, walk, lift and carry.

In addition, based on my evaluation of him, the result of the evaluation and the conclusions I made as well as his age, his education, past work experience, it's also my opinion that based on all these factors he would be unable to perform any of his past relevant work or transfer his skills to other types of semi-skilled occupations.

In addition, its my opinion he would be unable to perform any sedentary, light, medium or heavy work existing in the local or national economy on a sustained, regular competitive basis. It's my opinion he is unemployable for any job existing in the competitive labor market.

Finally, Provder testified that based on Lister's "present condition," he could not be rehabilitated to allow him to work in the future.

Respondent's case proceeded with testimony first from Dr. William A. Loeb, a board certified orthopedist "in the field of trauma." He examined Lister on April 6, 1987 at which time he took a history. After explaining the results of that examination and agreeing with the diagnosis of a herniated disc, Dr. Loeb estimated petitioner's disability orthopedically as, "12 1/2 percent partial total." He indicated that he would recommend that Lister undergo surgery therefor because "he's an excellent candidate." He further opined that petitioner is capable of some type of gainful employment even without such medical intervention. Specifically, he stated that petitioner is able to participate in "a non-laborious, sedentary type of work where he could certainly be productive to a reasonable extent" and gave specific examples of such jobs. However, Dr. Loeb agreed that the present orthopedic injuries do impose significant limitations on petitioner's ability to bend his back.

The next expert witness to testify for respondent was Dr. Abraham S. Effron, a board certified neurologist and psychiatrist. He had examined petitioner in April 1987 and his opinion of petitioner's disability was expressed thus:

Based upon the present data with reference to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Coppola v. Logistec Connecticut, Inc.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • July 3, 2007
    ...See Duong v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, supra, 169 Cal.App.3d at 983-84, 215 Cal.Rptr. 609; Lister v. J.B. Eurell Co., 234 N.J.Super. 64, 77, 560 A.2d 89 (App.Div.1989). 10. The majority's claim that perpetuating the concept of exclusive federal jurisdiction will not foster unifor......
  • Akef v. BASF Corp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • July 7, 1994
    ...dismissal of the claim against BASF without findings, while an oversight, needs to be remedied on remand. Lister v. J.B. Eurell Co., 234 N.J.Super. 64, 73, 560 A.2d 89 (App.Div.1989). From this record, it appears that there is no basis of liability against Chemo Dynamics, and the dismissal ......
  • State v. Leonard
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • June 23, 1989
    ...of four months is inexcusable and affects the fact finder's recollection and assessment of credibility. See Lister v. J.B. Eurell Co., 234 N.J.Super. 64, 560 A.2d 89 (App.Div.1989). Here, the judge should have relied upon his notes and any additional testimony of Seymour properly recorded i......
  • Lesniewski v. W.B. Furze Corp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • February 23, 1998
    ...must be well founded in reason and logic; mere guess or conjecture is not a substitute for legal proof." [Lister v. J.B. Eurell Co., 234 N.J.Super. 64, 72, 560 A.2d 89 (App.Div.1989).] When reviewing an agency determination, "due regard [should be given] to the agency's expertise where such......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT