"Respondent's neuropsychiatric expert, L. Scott Eisenberg, M.D., examined petitioner on March 9, 2004. He noted petitioner's unrelated medical disorders as hypertension, diabetes, and a viral infection of the eye. He also noted that he had previously examined petitioner in December 2000. Dr. Eisenberg found "[a] degree of elaboration" by petitioner regarding his subjective complaints and concluded that there was no objective evidence of any increase in neurologic disability in 2004. He wrote: "Assuming the complaints and his presentation for the neuropsychiatric point of view are bona fide, I would estimate an additional disability in that regard of 2% of partial total related to his back condition."
"The judge of compensation was not bound to accept the conclusions of petitioner's doctors. See Perez v. Capitol Ornamental, Concrete Specialties, Inc., 288 N.J.Super. 359, 367-68 (App.Div.1996). On this record, he could reasonably accept the conclusions of respondent's doctors that they found no objective medical evidence in 2004 and 2006 demonstrating an increase in disability from that in 2000.JOSE MEDINA-SEGARRA v RUDL FENCING & DECKING,, DOCKET NO. A-3652-08T2, 2010 WL 1029948 (N.J.Super.A.D.).
