Thomas, Thomas & Hafer Attorneys, Mark Powell and Gabrielle Martin, recently won the grant of a Suspension Petition and dismissal of a Review Petition. Claimant was employed as an administrative assistant at a corrections facility when she was struck in the back with a cell door. The claim was accepted as compensable by the Employer and Claimant was receiving ongoing benefits. Based on a favorable IME report of Dr. Mauthe indicating that Claimant could return to work with a 10-pound lifting restriction, a restriction that was well within the scope of her regular job duties, Employer sent Claimant a job offer letter in December 2024. Claimant testified that when she presented to work that day, her manager was unaware of her restrictions and alleged that she was forced to stand or sit at areas other than her desk for several hours because another employee was at Claimant’s desk. Claimant did not return to work after this contending that the work was not actually available to her, and asserted in her Review Petition that the description of injury should be amended to include aggravation and objective worsening of the lumbar spine with worsening and aggravation of L4-L5 protrusion and neural effacement, mechanical lumbar pain, lumbar radiculopathy, lumbar facet syndrome, left sacroiliac joint dysfunction, and posttraumatic left foot drop. During the litigation, Claimant underwent a spinal fusion and sought to have employer deemed responsible for the bills.

During the trial deposition of Claimant’s medical expert, Mark cross-examined Claimant’s attorney-curated treating physician and forced him to concede that the position offered by Employer was arguably within Claimant’s restrictions, and that he was the only provider to diagnose Claimant with the slew of injuries asserted in Claimant’s Review Petition. Likewise, Mark was able to highlight Claimant’s prior medical history despite Claimant denying prior medical treatment for her back resulting in the Judge’s rejection of her testimony as incredible and reference to it as possessing “circumloquaciousness.”

Gabrielle drafted the brief in support of the Suspension Petition and in opposition to the Review Petition, arguing that the position offered by Employer was suitable and would have provided her with wages higher than her pre-injury wage, along with raising the issues with the testimony of Dr. Shah. The Judge credited the opinions of Dr. Mauthe over those of Dr. Shah, stating that Dr. Shah’s testimony was inconsistent, contradictory, and his recommendation for surgery was “non-sensical” as opposed to the logical and well-reasoned testimony of Dr. Mauthe. Additionally, the Judge credited the testimony of two Employer witnesses over the testimony of Claimant given Claimant’s testimony had several inconsistencies.