Soto v. Exclusive Coachworks, Inc., DOCKET NO. A-2331-19
| Decision Date | 12 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-2331-19 |
| Parties | HECTOR SOTO, Petitioner-Respondent, v. EXCLUSIVE COACHWORKS, INC., Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
Before Judges Sumners and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Division of Workers' Compensation, Claim Petition No. 2017-32597.
Carpenter, McCadden & Lane, LLP, attorneys for appellant (Kelly M. Smith, on the briefs).
Ginarte, Gallardo, Gonzalez & Winograd, LLP, attorneys for respondent (Daniel Maisel, of counsel and on the brief; Sean T. Payne, on the brief).
Respondent Exclusive Coachworks, Inc. appeals from a January 10, 2020 order entered by a Judge of Worker's Compensation requiring it to pay for petitioner Hector Soto's knee replacement as well as provide temporary disability benefits, N.J.S.A. 34:15-12, while he recovered from surgery. We affirm.
We discern the following facts from the record. Petitioner, who was employed by respondent as an autobody repairman, was injured on October 3, 2017, when a hammer struck the inside of his left knee. Because petitioner was unable to walk, his employer instructed him to go to the emergency room. On October 5, 2017, emergency room (ER) physicians performed an x-ray. There was no evidence of acute fracture or dislocation; however, there was a small suprapatellar effusion. The ER doctor instructed him to follow up with an orthopedic surgeon.
On October 10, 2017, petitioner, on his own accord, went to Dr. Robin Innella, who sent him for an MRI.1 After reviewing the MRI, Dr. Innella diagnosed petitioner with a torn meniscus as well as a trabecular bone injury in his left knee. Dr. Innella recommended petitioner undergo an arthroscopic surgery to his left knee.
The worker's compensation carrier referred petitioner to two other orthopedists, Dr. Thomas Nordstrom and Dr. Wayne Colizza, both of whom agreed that arthroscopic surgery was medically necessary and causally related to the October 3, 2017 workplace injury. On July 13, 2018, Dr. Colizza performed an authorized arthroscopy of the left knee and partial meniscectomies. After the surgery, however, petitioner's condition did not improve, despite additional conservative treatment including physical therapy and injections. Dr. Colizza initially opined that the work injury and thesubsequent surgery "accelerated" petitioner's need for a total knee replacement but changed his position after reviewing records from petitioner's prior medical treatments.
On April 26, 2019, petitioner filed a motion for medical and temporary disability benefits seeking authorization for a left knee replacement and temporary benefits retroactive to January 2019. A four-day trial was conducted before a judge of compensation.2 The issues at trial were whether petitioner's undisputed need for a knee replacement was causally related to the October 3, 2017 work injury and whether petitioner was entitled to past or future benefits.
Dr. Morris Horowitz testified on behalf of petitioner.3 He examined petitioner in January 2018 and February 2019. He testified that Dr. Innella's 2011 statement that petitioner "may need a knee replacement" was not a definitive medical diagnosis. Additionally, Dr. Horowitz testified petitioner's condition could have been exacerbated and aggravated in the nine months between the injury and the subsequent surgery. Based on the objective medical records and the pathophysiological understanding of the trauma involved, Dr.Horowitz concluded, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there was a causal relationship between the work injury and petitioner's need for a total knee replacement.
Dr. Colizza testified on behalf of respondent.4 Dr. Colizza testified that, after reviewing petitioner's medical records as to his previous injuries and surgeries,5 his opinion "changed significantly" as to causality. In Dr. Colizza's opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, petitioner's current complaints were related to his osteoarthritis, not the October 3, 2017 work injury. Although he agreed that petitioner needed a knee replacement, Dr. Colizza concluded that the need for the knee replacement was precipitated by petitioner's injuries in 1995 and 2009.
After the hearing, the judge issued an order and opinion authorizing a total knee replacement and temporary disability benefits from the date of the knee replacement surgery until petitioner attains maximum medical improvement. The judge found there was Notwithstanding, the judge noted that "the employer takes the employee as the employer finds the employee, with all of the pre-existing disease and infirmity that may exist." Verge v. Cnty. of Morris. 272 N.J. Super. 118, 125 (App. Div. 1994) (citing Kelly v. Alarmtec, Inc., 160 N.J. Super. 208, 212 (App. Div. 1978)).
The judge found it was undisputed that petitioner suffered a work injury to his left knee in the subject 2017 accident. Dr. Horowitz testified that the work injury in this matter and walking on the injured knee for approximately nine months without treatment probably aggravated and exacerbated the pre-existing conditions in the knee. The judge noted that Dr. Colizza, as well, acknowledged that the nine months without treatment and the surgeries possibly caused an exacerbation to petitioner's underlying osteoarthritis. The judge concluded that, although the work injury may not be the sole reason that petitioner needs a total knee replacement, it was probable that the work injury and the nine months without treatment accelerated the need for a total knee replacement. Finding Dr. Horowitz's opinion more credible than Dr. Colizza's opinion, the judgeconcluded there was a causal relationship between the October 3, 2017 work accident and the current need for a knee replacement.6 This appeal ensued.
It is well-settled that "the scope of appellate review of factual findings by a judge of compensation is limited." Renner v. AT&T, 218 N.J. 435, 448 (2014) (citing Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965)). Our scope of review is "limited to whether the findings made could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the record . . . with due regard to the agency's expertise." McGory v. SLS Landscaping, 463 N.J. Super. 437, 452 (App. Div. 2020) (quoting Hersh v. Cnty. of Morris, 217 N.J. 236, 242 (2014)). "We may not substitute our own factfinding for that of the [j]udge of [c]ompensation even if we were inclined to do so." Lombardo v. Revlon, Inc., 328 N.J. Super. 484, 488 (App. Div. 2000). "We owe no particular deference to the judge of compensation's interpretation of the law." Sexton v. Cnty. of Cumberland/Cumberland Manor, 404 N.J. Super. 542, 548 (App. Div. 2009) (citing Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)).
On appeal, respondent argues the judge erred when he credited the opinion of petitioner's expert Dr. Horowitz, who was retained for the purposes of litigation, rather than the opinion of Dr. Colizza as the treating physician. Considering the record, and applying our deferential standard of review, we are compelled to disagree.
We are mindful that "our courts have developed a guidepost—where the medical testimony is in conflict, greater weight...
To continue reading
Request your trial