Disability must be established to a reasonable degree of medical certainty based on objective relevant medical findings. A judge may reject in whole or part uncontroverted testimony that he or she does not believe.

The claimant appealed the judge’s denial of temporary indemnity benefits for a specific period. The day after the work accident, the claimant was seen at an urgent care facility and given restrictions. A week later, she was seen again and was released without any work restrictions. At the second visit, she denied an injection offered to her and was told that she could return if her condition worsened or she wanted the injection. Twelve days later, she elected to proceed with the injection and was given restrictions again. She received temporary indemnity benefits for the period prior to and after the intervening 12-day period.

The claimant argued she had restrictions during the 12-day period or that these restrictions were medically justified. The judge found to the contrary. The evidence revealed that the first authorized treating physician opined that full-duty work may cause discomfort but no harm, while a second authorized treating physician later opined that it was appropriate to have lifted the work restrictions under the circumstances.

The claimant told the doctor and the judge that pain precluded her from working during those 12 days, but neither were convinced. The First District Court of Appeal pointed out that Section 440.09(1) states: “Disability must be established to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, based on objective relevant medical findings…” The court further noted that a judge may reject in whole or part uncontroverted testimony that he or she does not believe.

Therefore, the First District Court of Appeal held that the judge’s findings were supported by competent substantial evidence and that the claimant failed to meet her burden of proof. The judge’s holding was affirmed.

_{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.}