In a recent arbitration hearing, Ankin Law attorney Scott Goldstein secured temporary total disability payments, medical bill payments and cervical fusion surgery for a truck driver who was injured on the job.

On the day of the injury, the truck driver drove a truck to a facility where an empty container was to be removed from his trailer. He was in the cab of the truck while the container was being removed from the chassis by a crane. As the crane picked up the container it also lifted the truck cab because it was still connected to the chassis. When the truck cab was about 5 feet off the ground it detached from the container and fell to the ground. The truck driver testified the impact to the ground was heavy causing immediate discomfort after experiencing a whiplash motion. He testified the discomfort was in his neck and upper back.

As a Result of the arbitration, the driver’s employer will pay outstanding bills, totaling $31,194.96.
The driver will receive credit for temporary total disability benefits for a period of 53 3/7 weeks, totaling $36,363.20.
The employer also has been ordered to pay for an anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion at C5-6-7 as recommended by the driver’s doctor. This includes future reasonable and necessary attendant care.

(Read the full arbitrator decision here)

After the accident, the truck driver reported to his doctor he had neck pain radiating down his right arm, weakness in his right arm, tenderness, and restricted cervical range of motion, along with numbness and tingling. During the course of many clinic appointments he underwent cervical epidural injections that seemed to temporarily relieve some pain.
His employer sent him to a different doctor (as is their right under Section 12) who agreed the driver needed surgery, but not because of any injury suffered on the job. He opined the work accident caused a minor cervical sprain or strain which had long since resolved. The doctor felt the intermittent and late onset of pain was consistent with a significant degenerate disc disease and had no relationship to his work accident. The arbitrator had to decide which doctor made a more persuasive diagnosis.

Below is an excerpt from the arbitrator’s decision detailing this question:

The Arbitrator has carefully reviewed and considered all medical evidence along with all the testimony. The Arbitrator finds truck driver, (Petitioner) has proven by the preponderance of the credible evidence that his current condition of ill-being is causally related to his work accident, as set forth more fully below.
The Arbitrator finds the opinions of Dr. S, as the treating physician, to be more persuasive than the opinions of Dr. C (section 12 physician) because, in part, since he had a greater opportunity to assess Petitioners symptoms and credibility than the Section 12 examiner. See International Vermiculite Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 77 Ill.2d 1, 4 (1979); see also Sears v. Rutishauser, 102 Ill. 2d. 402. 407 (1984).
Dr. S diagnosed a herniated disc at C5-6 with right arm radiculopathy related to Petitioner’s work accident. The MRI showed the disc herniation at C5-6 that impinged upon the thecal sac. Dr. S opined the mechanism of injury was a competent mechanism to result in a disc herniation. (Px. 4). Dr. S indicated Petitioner did not suffer a simple cervical strain because he had significant pain and a progression of symptoms resulting in radiculopathy. Dr. S opined that Petitioner’s preexisting degenerative disc disease at C5-6 was asymptomatic until his work accident. The evidence at trial confirms Petitioner was not experiencing any cervical spine symptoms until after his work accident and that his symptoms continued to progress. The Arbitrator finds the medical records to be consistent with Dr. S ’s opinions.

The Arbitrator finds the opinions of Dr. C less persuasive than the opinions of Dr.S . Dr. C opined Petitioner suffered a cervical strain or sprain which resolved by March 1, 2024 since the typical soft tissue injury resolves in 6-12 weeks. However, on March 1, 2024, Petitioner was examined at xxxxx. The examination show that Petitioner’s symptoms were not resolved. The examination noted weakness in the right arm, restricted cervical range of motion and tenderness. (Px. 3). The Arbitrator finds Petitioner’s March 1, 2024 examination findings undermines Dr. C ’s MMI opinion.

Dr. C also that opined Petitioner’s current condition was only a manifestation and normal progression of his degenerative disc disease unrelated to his work accident. The Arbitrator finds Dr. C failed to sufficiently address the temporal relationship between Petitioner’s symptoms and his work injury. Petitioner was asymptomatic prior to his work injury but became symptomatic after his work accident and remained continuously symptomatic thereafter. Dr. C also stated Petitioner’s upper extremity weakness resolved by January 19, 2024. The medical records dated February 20, 2024, from , conflict with Dr. C ’s position because, at that time, Petitioner was still experiencing upper extremity weakness. Additionally, the medical record dated May 10, 2024, also from
Xxxxx, show that Petitioner’s upper extremity weakness worsened after participating in work conditioning.

Dr. C opined that being jostled in a truck was an insufficient mechanism of injury to permanently aggravate or accelerate Petitioner’s degenerative condition. Dr. C failed to sufficiently address why Petitioner’s whiplash type cervical injury was an insufficient mechanism of injury but the normal progression of degenerative disc disease was a sufficient mechanism. To support his opinions Dr. C implies that Petitioner’s radiculopathy did not exist until it appeared persistent in the medical records around May of 2024. Dr. C doesn’t sufficiently address Petitioner’s upper extremity weakness which is also a neurologic finding.

The records from January 4, 2024, February 20, 2024 and May 10, 2024 show that Petitioner continuously experienced upper extremity weakness soon after his work accident. An MRI was ordered on January 4, 2024 based upon Petitioner’s upper extremity weakness to rule out a disc injury. The neurologic component of Petitioner’s symptoms appeared soon after his work accident but never fully resolved. The Arbitrator also notes that Dr. C did not address the worsening of Petitioner’s upper extremity weakness after participating in work conditioning or after retrieving files at work located in a bottom a drawer.