ROY HENDRICKSON VS. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE â€" EDISON Â (DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION), A-3267-15T2

Background

Roy Hendrickson, a UPS employee of ~29 years, worked as a package car driver, then (after a 2002 work injury) as a feeder and shifter driver; he developed worsening lumbar spine symptoms culminating in surgery (March 2014) and further pathology seen on 2013–2014 MRIs.
Hendrickson previously had a compensable 2002 lumbar injury (settled; 17.5% PPD after reopener) but continued working for UPS; he alleges occupational exposure from 2006–2013 (vibration from single-axle trucks, repeated impacts from connecting trailers) materially accelerated his condition.
He sought additional medical treatment via a 2014 claim; the Judge of Compensation granted temporary benefits and treatment, finding occupational exposure from 2006–2013 was the overwhelming cause of his current condition.
Both parties’ experts agreed further surgery was likely. Hendrickson’s expert (Dr. Cohen) attributed the new disc disruption and inflammatory changes to repetitive occupational stress; UPS’s expert (Dr. Shah) attributed the MRI findings to progression of the 2002 injury.
The judge credited Hendrickson and Dr. Cohen, discredited Dr. Shah as evasive, and found Hendrickson’s claim timely and compensable (not barred as a mere manifestation of the 2002 injury).
UPS appealed only legal/statute-of-limitations and related timing/reopener issues; the Appellate Division affirmed, deferring to the judge’s fact findings supported by the record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness / statute of limitations for occupational claim	Hendrickson: claim accrues when condition materially worsened or new findings appeared (2013 MRI / 2012–2013 symptoms), so 2014 petition was timely.	UPS: claim barred by two-year limitation and by Peterson rule — petitioner failed to timely reopen his 2002 accidental claim; new claim is untimely.	The court held the judge’s factual finding that occupational exposure 2006–2013 materially caused new injury controls; claim was timely and not barred.
Causation — occupational exposure vs natural progression of prior injury	Hendrickson: repetitive vibration/impact as feeder/shifter materially accelerated degeneration and produced acute disc disruption requiring treatment.	UPS: current condition is natural progression of the 2002 injury; job duties did not materially contribute.	The court accepted the compensation judge’s credibility determinations and held occupational exposure was the overwhelming cause.
Weight of medical testimony / credibility of experts	Hendrickson: Dr. Cohen’s exam, review of operative notes and MRIs linked exposures to objective inflammatory/disc disruption.	UPS: Dr. Shah argued MRIs reflect chronic degeneration from 2002 injury; he downplayed occupational causation.	The judge credited Dr. Cohen and found Dr. Shah evasive/nonpersuasive; appellate court deferred to those credibility findings.
Entitlement to medical treatment / benefits	Hendrickson: needs further surgery and treatment causally related to work exposure.	UPS: denies compensability so disputes obligation to provide treatment.	The court affirmed the grant of temporary benefits and medical treatment based on accepted causal link.

Key Cases Cited

Sager v. O.A. Peterson Constr. Co., 182 N.J. 156 (2004) (trial fact findings by compensation judge entitled to deference)
Lindquist v. City of Jersey City Fire Dep’t, 175 N.J. 244 (2003) (deference to Judge of Compensation’s factual and legal determinations unless manifestly unsupported)
Kovach v. Gen. Motors Corp., 151 N.J. Super. 546 (1978) (judges of compensation regarded as experts)
Peterson v. Hermann Forwarding Co., 267 N.J. Super. 493 (1993) (treatment of occupational claims filed after accidental claims—distinguishes mere manifestation from new compensable exposure)
Singletary v. Wawa, 406 N.J. Super. 558 (2009) (occupational exposure causing additional physical insult can support a new compensable claim)
Earl v. Johnson & Johnson, 158 N.J. 155 (1999) (work-related health problems may not immediately be compensable on onset)
Kozinsky v. Edison Prods. Co., 222 N.J. Super. 530 (1988) (findings reasonably reached on sufficient credible evidence sustain judgment)