Trial Judge Deference Prevails

How Appellate Courts Respect Workers' Compensation Findings and Why Prior Rulings Don't Always Bar Future Claims

The Medical Maze: Three Surgeries, Multiple Decisions

Norberto Peralta, a window fabricator for 20 years, suffered a workplace injury in July 2020 while lifting an 80-pound window. His case wound through multiple hearings as he required three cervical spine surgeries:

• First Surgery (October 2020): Anterior cervical decompression and fusion - ruled compensable
• Second Surgery (April 2021): Posterior cervical fusion - ruled non-compensable
• Third Surgery (Recommended): Revision surgery to address complications - the subject of this appeal

The complexity arose from the medical interplay between these procedures. While the first surgery was clearly work-related and the second was deemed unrelated to the accident, the third surgery presented a nuanced question: was it necessitated by complications from the compensable first surgery, or was it solely related to the non-compensable second surgery?

Substantial Deference: Why Appeals Courts Rarely Reverse

The appellate court applied the well-established standard that "factual findings of the compensation court are entitled to substantial deference." This deference exists because trial judges are uniquely positioned to:

• Observe witness demeanor: They can assess credibility by watching how witnesses testify
• Weigh competing medical opinions: Judges develop expertise in evaluating medical testimony
• Consider the complete evidentiary record: They hear all testimony and review all evidence firsthand

The court noted that appellate review is limited to determining whether findings "could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the record." Importantly, appellate courts "may not substitute [their] own factfinding for that of the [j]udge of [c]ompensation."

The Credibility Battle: Expert Witnesses Under Scrutiny

The trial judge's credibility determinations proved decisive. Petitioner's treating physician, who had examined and treated Peralta 10-15 times over two years and performed both surgeries, was found "extremely credible." His testimony received "considerable weight" because he explained how the interaction between the first two surgeries created the need for the third surgery.

In contrast, the respondent's expert, who had examined Peralta only once three years earlier, saw his credibility severely damaged when cross-examination revealed he had:

• Written a book targeting insurance adjusters and defense attorneys
• Derived 70% of his income from cases referred by claims adjustors
• Omitted this publication from his curriculum vitae

The judge found this expert's testimony "vague, overbroad, and not rendered within a reasonable degree of medical probability," and questioned his "candidness and inherent bias."

Why Prior Rulings Didn't Bar the Third Surgery Claim

Silver Line argued that res judicata and collateral estoppel should prevent Peralta from claiming the third surgery was compensable, since the second surgery had been ruled non-compensable. The court rejected this defense for a crucial reason: the issues were not identical.

The first trial addressed whether the second surgery itself was compensable. The second trial addressed whether the interaction between the first and second surgeries necessitated the third surgery. As the court explained:

"The discrete issues adjudicated by the judge in the second trial concerned whether the interplay of the first and second surgeries necessitated the third surgery to stabilize petitioner's spine because of his work-related injury."

This distinction matters because collateral estoppel requires that "the issue to be precluded is identical to the issue decided in the prior proceeding." When medical complications create new issues that weren't previously litigated, injured workers aren't automatically barred from pursuing those claims.

The Human Element: Liberal Construction in Action

The court also invoked the Workers' Compensation Act's humanitarian purpose, noting it is "humane social legislation designed to place the cost of work-connected injury upon the employer." Even if all collateral estoppel factors had been met, the court stated it would have refused to apply the doctrine because doing so "would neither satisfy the humane purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act nor would it be a fair result" given Peralta's continued suffering and deteriorated quality of life.

Key Takeaways

1. Substantial Deference Standard: Appellate courts rarely overturn workers' compensation trial judges' factual findings, especially regarding witness credibility and medical causation
2. Expert Witness Credibility Matters: Financial relationships with insurance companies and failure to disclose bias can severely undermine expert testimony
3. Treating Physician Advantage: Doctors who have ongoing treatment relationships typically receive more credibility than one-time examining physicians
4. Issue Identity Requirement: Res judicata and collateral estoppel only apply when the exact same legal issue was previously decided, not merely related issues
5. Liberal Construction Principle: Workers' compensation law favors injured workers, and courts will consider the humanitarian purposes of the Act when applying legal doctrines
6. Medical Complexity: Subsequent surgeries necessitated by complications from compensable injuries may themselves be compensable, even if intervening non-compensable procedures occurred

The Bottom Line

This case reinforces that workers' compensation trial judges possess significant authority in making factual determinations, and appellate courts will respect those findings when supported by credible evidence. For injured workers, it demonstrates that prior adverse rulings don't necessarily preclude recovery for related but distinct medical complications. For employers and insurers, it underscores the importance of presenting unbiased, credible medical testimony and the difficulty of overturning trial court decisions on appeal.

Peralta v Silver Line Building Products, Docket A-0370-24 (NJ App DIv 2025) Unreported Decision

UNPUBLISHED OPINION. CHECK COURT RULES BEFORE CITING. 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION 
This opinion shall not “constitute precedent or be binding upon any court.” Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Recommended Citation: Gelman, Jon, Trial Judge Deference Prevails (09/25/2025) https://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/2025/09/trial-judge-deference-prevails.html
...
*Jon L. Gelman of Wayne, NJ, is the author of NJ Workers' Compensation Law (West-Thomson-Reuters) and co-author of the national treatise Modern Workers' Compensation Law (West-Thomson-Reuters).

Blog: Workers' Compensation
LinkedIn: JonGelman
LinkedIn Group: Injured Workers Law & Advocacy Group
Author: "Workers' Compensation Law" West-Thomson-Reuters
Mastodon:@gelman@mstdn.social
Blue Sky: jongelman@bsky.social

© 2025 Jon L Gelman. All rights reserved.

Attorney Advertising

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Disclaimer