>Michael W. Cardamone, Esq, of Krasno Krasno & Onwudinjo, a leading Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation law firm, successfully fended off a Motion to Dismiss filed by Employer’s counsel. The Motion arose from the following sequence of events: The parties entered into a Stipulation in December 2008 wherein they agreed that Claimant injured his shoulder at work, for which benefits would be payable. The parties agreed on a diagnosis for the injury- supraspinatus tendonapathy. Subsequently, Claimant filed a Petition to Review seeking to expand the definition of the work injury, to include RSD, cervical radiculopathy, and a rotator cuff tear. The Employer/Insurer objected, asserting that Claimant should be precluded from asserting new injuries because it had evidence at the time of the Stipulation in December that Claimant’s work injury included some of those diagnoses.
Cardamone argued that said objection should be overruled for several reasons: 1) There is no evidence that Claimant’s counsel had medical records in his possession listing the diagnoses, at the time the Stipulation was entered into; 2) Based on the recent Weney case, the Motion is misplaced because any records in Claimant’s counsel’s posession at the time of the Stipulation, merely stated that the diagnoses were “possibly” related to the work injury; 3) Requiring Claimant’s counsel to pursue injuries that are “possibly” related (ie, equivocal) places an absurd burden on all attorneys representing injured workers.
The Workers’ Compensation Judge agreed with Cardamone and overruled Employer’s/Insurer’s objection to the Petition for Review.
-Michael W. Cardamone
Voted PA Super Lawyer
Free consults 7 days a week