The administrative law judge's finding that: "the claimant's evidence of an accident lacks credibility based on varying inconsistent statements from the claimant, and because the evidence supports a finding that the claimant's neck injury manifest (sic) months after the alleged occurrence;" is supported by the record. (Decision, page 11) Furthermore, the mechanism of injury was described differently throughout. ${ }^{2}$
Employee asserts that the administrative law judge erred in relying on employee's purported inconsistent statement regarding the nature and onset of his pain from his
[^0]
[^0]: ${ }^{1}$ The parties stipulated that proper notice was given to the employer of the alleged accident on August 31, 2015. The parties' stipulation did not include acknowledgement that an accident occurred on that date.
${ }^{2}$ At various times, claimant reported a lifting injury, a turning or twisting injury, swerving to avoid a car, an injury caused by repeatedly backing up and hitting the loading dock, stacking, and hard steering.
Improve: Otis Saine
- 2 -
deposition. During questioning of the employee at the hearing on October 26, 2016, by employer's attorney, statements from the employee's deposition on December 2, 2015, were referenced. Employee's deposition was not in evidence and employer's attorney did not read the testimony into the record. (Tr. 50) We conclude that the reference to an alleged date of injury from employee's deposition testimony as August 25, 2015, is not supported by the record because it is based on a deposition transcript not in evidence. (Decision, page 6) However, we note this was only one thread of the administrative law judge's analysis. The administrative law judge found ample instances of inconsistencies in the information claimant reported to the medical providers. The finding that "claimant's evidence of an accident lacks credibility based on the varying inconsistent statements from the claimant..." is supported. (Decision, page 11)
Employee testified in person before the administrative law judge. The administrative law judge recounted and substantially relied upon his firsthand observations of employee's testimony regarding the issue of employee's credibility. After careful consideration, we are not persuaded to disturb the administrative law judge's credibility determination as to the nature and onset of injury. As pointed out in the administrative law judge's decision, employee identified the nature of the injury (as well as the date), differently in various incarnations of his Claim for Compensation.³ Furthermore, although the initial incident was reported to be in August 2015, employee did not report neck pain until January 5, 2016. Prior to that time, he only referred to right shoulder/arm pain.
Expert medical opinion evidence
The administrative law judge's finding was that the opinion of Dr. Kevin Rutz⁴ was generally more credible, and his causation opinion more persuasive in this matter. After careful consideration, we conclude this finding was supported by the record. Dr. Rutz's examination of employee and his medical records appears to have been more comprehensive than the other physicians, including X-rays in the office on his visit of May 3, 2016; review of MRI scans from 2008, and January 2016,⁵ range of motion-oriented testing; a patient history; review of many of the past examining physician reports relative to this claim; employee's deposition; and a physical examination. Dr. Rutz notes that the delayed onset of the neck symptoms first raised in January 2016, suggest this was not caused by any alleged incident in August 2015. Dr. Rutz further opines that one single incident as described would not cause a disk herniation at C5-C6, as shown on employee's scans, but rather it was more consistent with continuing degenerative changes.
Corrections
The administrative law judge found that "at hearing, claimant testified that on August 15, 2015, his pain began immediately following an incident in which he had to jerk his
³ Employee's initial Claim for Compensation form on September 29, 2015, alleged injury due to heavy and repetitive activities, to his shoulder and right arm. Amended claim forms were filed on December 4, 2015, January 25, 2016, and March 29, 2016. The subsequent claim forms did not add a reference to the neck until January 2016 (second amendment). Dates of injury were reported in the Claims as August 31, 2015 and August 25, 2015.
⁴ Within the record, there are inaccurate references to a Dr. Ruiz. These references should reflect Dr. Rutz. There was no consulting physician by the name of Dr. Ruiz in this proceeding.
⁵ The Decision at page 7 refers to an MRI taken on January 15, 2015. This is a typographical error. The date of the MRI was January 15, 2016.
steering wheel to the right and slam on his brakes to avoid a collision." (Decision page 11, emphasis ours) Upon review of the transcript of hearing, we find no reference in claimant's testimony identifying the date of August 15, 2015. ${ }^{6}
Employee's testimony was generally that he did not recall the exact date. { }^{7}$ We therefore correct the Administrative Law Judge's Findings at page 11, as follows:
... at hearing, claimant testified that his pain began immediately following an incident in which he had to jerk his steering wheel to the right and slam on his brakes to avoid a collision.
This minor correction to the Decision does not affect our confidence in the administrative law judge's conclusion that claimant did not establish that he suffered an unexpected traumatic event or unusual strain identifiable by time and place of occurrence.