NWCDN Members regularly post articles and summary judgements in workers’ compensations law in your state.
Select a state from the dropdown menu below to scroll through the state specific archives for updates and opinions on various workers’ compensation laws in your state.
Contact information for NWCDN members is also located on the state specific links in the event you have additional questions or your company is seeking a workers’ compensation lawyer in your state.
Claimant filed a Petition alleging a cumulative detrimental effect injury to her bilateral knees resulting from her work as a Stower at an Amazon warehouse. After Hearing, the Board issued a Decision, denying the Petition, and accepting the opinion of defense expert Dr. Gelman over claimant’s treating physician Dr. Palma.
Both experts agreed claimant had pre-existing conditions in her knees including patella alta (high riding kneecap), genu varum (bowleggedness), that create altered mechanics and abnormal forces on the knees. These conditions are physiologic and developmental, and likely contributors or causes of claimant’s knee complaints. Both experts agreed with the diagnosis of chondromalacia patella. Symptoms associated with chondromalacia patella can come and go with time, and be aggravated by walking for exercise or claimant’s biomechanical issues. Claimant had treatment for the bilateral knees in 2023 including physical therapy. Her complaints then were very similar to the complaints in August 2024. Dr. Gelman felt the treatment in August 2024 was likely for the same condition that existed in 2023 as opposed to something new.
The Board shared concerns expressed by Dr. Gelman about the credibility of Claimant’s medical history and exaggerations in the type and extent of work activities she was engaged in during the weeks and months leading up to 8/22/24. Dr. Palma conceded he relied on claimant’s history in forming his causation opinion.
Claimant denied a history of prior knee problems in her intake paperwork with Dr. Palma in the fall of 2024 and did not reveal the history of severe bilateral knee pain and treatment in 2023 when she saw him in November 2024. Dr. Palma became aware of this history on the date of his deposition. Dr. Palma said the prior records would not change his causation opinion if claimant became pain free after the 2023 treatment. The last known medical record from the 2023 treatment was a physical therapy note dated 1/5/24 that showed 6/10 bilateral knee pain. The Board was therefore not persuaded her 2023 knee pain resolved, commenting “improvement is not the same as resolution.” The Board did not find it believable that claimant somehow forgot the severe bilateral knee pain in 2023, the time she was out of work and treated for same, by the time she saw Dr. Palma in the fall of 2024.
The Board agreed with Dr. Gelman that claimant exaggerated her work hours and activities in the timeframe immediately prior to the alleged 8/22/24 date of manifestation. Payroll records documented she worked substantially less hours than she claimed, including 5.5 hours the week before the alleged date of manifestation, and 17.07 hours the week before that, and less than full time many weeks prior. Claimant testified she spent half her day squatting and the other half climbing stepladders, but an employer representative testified the job requires 11-25% squatting and 1-10% climbing. The job is mostly walking. Lifting requirements are fairly light. Amazon updates their job descriptions yearly to make sure these averages are accurate. The Board did not dispute that there were physical demands with the job, but felt claimant overstated same.
Should you have any questions regarding this Decision, please contact John Ellis or any other attorney in our Workers’ Compensation Department.
Desardouin v. Amazon.com, IAB Hrg. No. 1550750 (July 11, 2025).