DAVID KALUCKI VS. UNITED PARCEL SERVICEÂ (DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION), A-3486-15T3

Background

Claimant David Kalucki, a UPS clerical employee, had prior workers' compensation awards in 2009 for left shoulder/cervical injuries (40% PPD, with a 37.5% credit) and bilateral carpal tunnel (17.5% PPD, with a 15% credit).
He later sought increased disability benefits for worsening neck/left shoulder symptoms, aggravated carpal tunnel (numbness, grip loss), and increased hearing loss; only the hearing loss increase (1%) was awarded and is not appealed.
Claimant relied on a long‑standing examining physician (not a board‑certified orthopedist) who reported objective findings showing increased limitations and estimated substantial percentage increases in disability since 2009.
Respondent presented a board‑certified orthopedic expert who performed imaging and physical exam, found no objective worsening, normal/ improved range of motion, no atrophy or sensory deficits, and concluded claimant was at maximum medical benefit with no increased disability.
The workers’ compensation judge found respondent’s expert more credible (citing objective findings and board certification among factors), rejected claimant’s expert and subjective complaints due to lack of objective corroboration and the claimant’s continued full‑duty work and lack of additional treatment, and denied increased awards except for the one percent hearing loss.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claimant proved an increased incapacity of neck/shoulder causally related to the prior work injury	Kalucki: objective-exam evidence and expert opinion show worsening ROM, pain, numbness and increased disability since 2009	UPS: board‑certified orthopedist found no objective change; imaging and exam show no increased impairment; claimant remained at full duty and sought no new treatment	Denied — court credited respondent’s expert; insufficient objective proof of increased disability
Whether claimant proved increased carpal tunnel disability	Kalucki: examiner found increased wrist limitations and sensory loss supporting increased PPD	UPS: exam showed no atrophy, no decreased sensation in radial distribution, normal grip; findings inconsistent with carpal tunnel progression	Denied — court accepted respondent’s expert; no objective worsening attributable to carpal tunnel
Whether the judge erred by preferring a board‑certified orthopedist over claimant’s expert	Kalucki: judge improperly discounted his expert and relied on board certification as a dispositive factor	UPS: differing expert qualifications and objective testing support credibility of its expert	Denied — appellate court upheld judge’s credibility assessment; board certification was one permissible factor among others
Standard of review for disputed expert medical opinions in workers’ comp	N/A (procedural/legal standard)	N/A	The appellate court applied deferential review: findings will stand if supported by sufficient credible evidence and the compensation judge’s credibility determinations are given weight

Key Cases Cited

Yeomans v. City of Jersey City, 27 N.J. 496 (establishes burden to prove increased incapacity related to original injury)
Perez v. Pantasote, Inc., 95 N.J. 105 (disability must be supported by objective evidence; subjective complaints alone insufficient)
Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589 (standard of appellate review: factual findings sustained if reasonably supported by credible evidence)
Sager v. O.A. Peterson Constr., 182 N.J. 156 (deference to compensation judge’s factual findings even if appellate court might reach different result)
Paul v. Baltimore Upholstering Co., 66 N.J. 111 (compensation judge may accept one expert and reject another on credibility grounds)