Goldberg Segalla partner Ilir Imeri secured the voluntary dismissal of a workers’ compensation claim after uncovering evidence that directly contradicted the claimant’s reported physical limitations and prompted his treating physician to withdraw both a surgical recommendation and ongoing work restrictions.

The claimant, a commercial driver for our trucking-company client and its workers’ compensation carrier, alleged that he sustained a right elbow injury arising out of a work-related incident in early 2026. His treating physician diagnosed right elbow lateral epicondylitis, a partial common extensor tendon tear, medial epicondylitis, and biceps tendinopathy. Within months of the alleged injury, the physician recommended a lateral epicondyle debridement procedure and maintained the claimant on continuous restrictions prohibiting lifting and repetitive activity involving the right upper extremity. Based on the medical records alone, the claim appeared headed toward surgery, ongoing indemnity exposure, and a potential permanency award.

Recognizing the significant exposure presented by the claim, Ilir pursued an aggressive investigation. Although physical surveillance did not produce meaningful evidence, Ilir identified information indicating that the claimant had participated in competitive tractor-pulling events while subject to the physician’s restrictions. Further investigation uncovered publicly available video footage, photographs, and social media posts showing the claimant actively operating a tractor during the period in which he claimed substantial functional limitations.

Rather than incur the expense of a deposition of the treating physician, Ilir developed a more efficient strategy focused on obtaining a supplemental medical opinion. Working with opposing counsel, the team secured agreement to submit the surveillance materials, photographs, and social media evidence directly to the physician, accompanied by a targeted request for updated opinions regarding causation, treatment recommendations, and work capacity. The approach provided a cost-effective means of placing the newly discovered evidence before the physician while avoiding substantial litigation expenses.

The physician’s supplemental report fundamentally altered the case. After reviewing the materials, he concluded that the claimant “has not been completely truthful,” noting that the claimant had previously maintained that a family member participated in the tractor-pulling events while he merely supervised. The physician found that the footage contradicted those representations and determined that the activities depicted were inconsistent with both the claimant’s subjective complaints and the objective medical findings. As a result, he withdrew his recommendation for surgery, revised his opinions regarding the claimant’s condition, and concluded that no restrictions on the right upper extremity were necessary.

Faced with the treating physician’s revised opinions, claimant’s counsel moved to withdraw from the representation, and the petitioner subsequently agreed to voluntarily dismiss the claim.

Ultimately, the result demonstrates that thorough investigation and a willingness to press the medical evidence, efficiently and strategically, can dismantle even a surgical claim. By converting the treating physician’s own opinions into the defense’s strongest asset, and by doing so without the cost of a deposition, the defense eliminated exposure for surgery, TTD, and permanency, and secured a full dismissal.