Court finds that failure to object on specificity grounds, where specificity would show ripeness, waives challenge to ripeness. IME opinions are admissible and can support claim for specific medical benefits.

The claimant appealed an order from Judge Winn denying right knee surgery. After suffering a hard fall at work, the claimant was diagnosed with right knee chondromalacia and meniscal tear. The authorized treating provider opined that she was not a surgical candidate and that her condition was pre-existing. The claimant then obtained an independent medical examination. The IME physician opined that the claimant’s work accident was the major contributing cause of her condition, which required surgery. The judge accepted the IME doctor’s opinion. However, he also ruled that the claim for surgery was premature because no authorized treating provider had recommended surgery. The First District Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in two ways. First, the employer waived objections on the grounds of ripeness and specificity by not asserting that defense or moving to dismiss the claim. Second, IME opinions are admissible and can support claims for specific medical benefits.

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2020 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}