Inconsistent testimony defeats back claim

Bohannon v Peterson Industrial Scaffolding
2017 MOWCLR LEXIS 12
Feb. 7, 2017  (Denigan)

The commission affirms a denial of benefits that claimant failed to prove accident.

The Commission deferred to the ALJ's findings of credibility.

Claimant worked for the employer about a week. 

The ALJ noted

"Some of Claimant's testimony was simply inconsistent, or deliberately evasive. On direct examinataion he was questioned about the work days following the alleged accident that occurred on a Tuesday and the fact that the crew worked in the days preceding the Christmas holiday. However, on direct examination, Claimant was unwilling to acknowledge that Tuesday was the accident day.  Elsewhere, he purported not to recall his referral to his back surgeon even though Claimant currently works as a legal investigator.

His testimony was often misleading and he acceded to numerous corrections on cross-examination. His testimony contrasted sharply with the two supervisors whose testimony reconciles well with the timeline and the lack of WC patient histories to his (private) medical providers. Claimant's testimony is not reliable and cannot be found to be credible.

The unusual amount of leading questions, and summarizing questions, were a frequent distraction during trial."

Claimant underwent a disc herniation but a neurosurgeon was unable to conclude the condition flowed from hi accident.