Preview
BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19PM Pglof16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487
LAW OFFICE OF
MARK J. MOLZ
1400 Route 38 East, P.O. Box 577
HAINESPORT, NEw JERSEY 08036
PHoNne: (609) 267-8884
Fax: (609) 267-1281
Mark J. Mouz*# #ALSO MEMBEROF FL BAR
MARISA P. MOLZ *ALSO MEMBER OF PA BAR
ween weno
OF CounseL:
RICHARD R, DISTEFANO*
January 31, 2023
Clerk, Law Division
Superior Court of New Jersey
Burlington County Courts Facility
49 Rancocas Rd.
Mt. Holly, New Jersey 08060
Via eCourts
Re: Wolintz v. Kennedy
Docket No. BUR-L-1162-20
Dear Sir/Madam:
Enclosed please find an original and one copy of Plaintiff's Certification and Brief in opposition
to Defendants’ Motion in Limine regarding the matter above to be filed with the Court. Kindly file and
return a copy marked filed.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very Truly Yours,
Mark J. Molz, Esq./s/
Mark J. Molz, Esq.
MJM/tma
Enel.
ce: Nicholas Wolintz
Brad Parker, Esq.
Hon. James J. Ferrelli, J.S.C.
BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19 PM Pg2of16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487
MARK J. MOLZ, ESQUIRE
1400 RTE. 38 EAST, PO BOX 577
HAINESPORT, NJ 08036
Attorney ID # 038271985
Telephone 609-267-8884
Facsimile 609-267-1281
Attorney for Plaintiff
NICHOLAS D. WOLINTZ SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
BURLINGTON COUNTY
Plaintiff LAW DIVISION
DOCKET NO. BUR-L-1162-20
Civil Action
SONDRA KENNEDY; JOHN DOE 1- CERTIFICATION OF MARK J. MOLZ
10, individually, jointly and severally.
Defendant
Mark J. Molz of full age hereby certifies:
1 I am an attorney at law in the State of New Jersey and make this certification
based upon facts within my personal knowledge.
T represent the Plaintiff in the above matter.
T have been informed by Dr. Polino’s office that Upright MRI was not closed but
has been bought by another entity out of Bankruptcy.
Dr. Polino’s office manager Jenny advised that the MRI films still exist.
Dr. Polino’s office has advised that they will attempt to obtain the films.
Thereby certify the foregoing statements made by me are true. I understand that if
any of the foregoing statements made by are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
Dated: 1-31-23 Mark J. Molz, Esq. /s/
Mark J. Molz, Esq.
BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19 PM Pg3o0f16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487
MARK J. MOLZ, ESQUIRE
1400 RTE. 38 EAST, PO BOX 577
HAINESPORT, NJ 08036
Attorney ID # 038271985
Telephone 609-267-8884
Facsimile 609-267-1281
Attorney for Plaintiff
NICHOLAS D. WOLINTZ SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
BURLINGTON COUNTY
Plaintiff LAW DIVISION
DOCKET NO. BUR-L-1162-20
Civil Action
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE
SONDRA KENNEDY; JOHN DOE 1-
10, individually, jointly and severally.
Defendant
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defense counsel has not attached the report of their orthopedic expert Dr. Larry
Rosenberg dated 10-12-21 to the Defendant’s Motion.
Ihave attached the Defense Expert Report as Exhibit P-1.
At page 7 of the report, Dr. Rosenberg indicates that he personally reviewed the
following radiology films:
1/19/15 X-Rays
1/6/16 X-Rays
1/30/18 X-Rays
8/16/18 X-Rays
8/21/18 X-Rays
BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19PM Pg4of16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487
Dr. Rosenberg states at page 6 of his report that he relied upon the following
radiological reports that he reviewed:
10/29/18 Upright MRI Report of cervical spine
10/29/18 Upright MRI Report of lumbar spine
Dr. Rosenberg does not complain that he is disadvantaged in any way by the fact
that Upright MRI has not yet supplied the MRI files.
Plaintiff has no fault in connection with the fact that Upright MRI of Cherry Hill
has not yet supplied the electronic MRI Records. All experts in this case have relied upon
the MRI reports without objection.
The Defendants’ application to bar reference to the October 29, 2018 MRI reports
should be denied under the unique circumstances of this case.
LAW AND ARGUMENT
POINTI DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE SHOULD BE DENIED
BECAUSE IF GRANTED, IT COULD HAVE A DISPOSITIVE
EFFECT ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
Plaintiff's Motion seeks to bar objective evidence of Plaintiff's orthopedic
injuries. Throughout discovery, the Defendant did not raise this issue. Defendant did not
seek relief under Rule 4:23-5. New Jersey Court Rule 4:25-8 controls Motions in limine
and states:
“(1) Definition. In general terms and subject to particular circumstances of
a given claim or defense, a motion in limine is defined as an application
returnable at trial for a ruling regarding the conduct of the trial, including
admissibility of evidence, which motion, if granted, would not have a
dispositive impact on a litigant’s case. A dispositive motion falling outside
the purview of this rule would include. but_not_be limited to, an
application to bar an expert’s testimony in_a matter in which such
testimony is required as a matter of law to sustain a party’s burden of
proof. A motion in limine shall be part of the pretrial exchange under R.
BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19 PM Pg5of16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487
4:25-7(b). As a result, the filing of such motions shall not trigger any
filing fee.”
In Cho y. Trinitas Regional Medical Center, 443 N.J. Super. 461 (App. Div.
2016), the Court states:
“The fact that this misuse of the motion in limine occurs sufficiently often
to win our notice, despite our repeated cautions against such practice,
leads us to conclude it necessary to state clearly what a motion in limine is
not. It is not a summary judgment motion that happens to be filed on the
eve of trial. When granting a motion will result in the dismissal of a
plaintiffs case or the suppression of a defendant's defenses, the motion is
subject to Rule 4:46, the rule that governs summary judgment motions.”
id.
Here, Defendant seeks to bar objective evidence of Plaintiff's orthopedic injuries.
Plaintiff has no control whether Upright MRI has closed or was purchsed in bankruptcy.
In addition, Defendant’s expert did not complain and in fact relied on the MRI reports in
his report that is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
Accordingly, the Defendant’s Motion to bar testimony relating to Plaintiff's MRI
films should be denied.
POINT II DR. ROSENBERG ACKNOWLEDGES PLAINTIFF’S PRIOR
TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURIES HAD RESOLVED
In his report at page 1, Dr. Rosenberg states:
“A prior history of a traumatic brain injury in the late 90s was noted with
symptoms which had resolved.”
Accordingly, Plaintiff has not alleged an aggravation of a pre-existing injury and
a POLK report/analysis is not required. ““When a plaintiff does not plead aggravation of
pre-existing injuries, a comparative analysis is not required to make that demonstration.
AICRA does not impose on plaintiff any special requirement for a comparative-medical
BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19 PM Pg6of16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487
analysis in respect of causation in order to vault the verbal threshold.” Davidson v. Slater,
189 N.J. 166, 170 (N.J. 2007).
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the Defendant’s Motion
be denied.
Dated: 1/31/23 MarkJ. Moiz, Esq. /s/
Mark J. Molz, Esq.
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19 PM Pg7of16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487
Orthopaedic & Sports Specialists, PC
Larry S. Rosenberg, M.D. FAAOS
798 South Route 73
West Berlin, NJ 08091
Ph (856) 809-9001
Fax (856) 809-9003
October 12, 2021
Mr. Brad A. Parker
Parker Young & Antinoff, LLC
2 Eves Drive, Suite 200
Marlton, NJ 08053
Re: Nicholas Wolintz
Dear Mr. Parker:
I came to evaluate Nicholas Wolintz at your request on Septe
mber 27, 2021, regarding alleged injuries
sustained from the motor vehicle accid lent of June 18, 2018. Face
time spent with the plaintiff for the
purpose of this evaluation was 1 hour and 8 minutes. Given the current Covid-19
guidelines were followed during the evaluation of this p laintiff. pandemic, all CDC
History: As you know, the plaintiff is a 58-year- old right-hand dominant
man who reports a motor
vehicle accident on June 18, 2018. At that time, he was a belted
driver whose vehicle was movin g and
struck along the front passenger side. The plainti ff noted no other contac
t to his vehicle, without airbag
deployment, windshield, or glass damage. The plaintiff self-extricated
from his vehicle and was
ambulat ory at the scene. He indicated his vehi icle was drivable after this accident, but
it was never fixed,
The accident report was available for my revi lew indicating no complaints
of injury at the scene without
EMS evaluation or emergency room treatment it after this accident.
‘The plaintiff indicated that he was directed by his attorney under the care
of a treating orthopaedist, Dr.
Robert Ranelle. Records indicated 4 visits b etween August 6, 2018, and Februa
ry 4, 2019, in relation to
complaints of severe neck and low back pai in as well as headaches, dizziness, and
ringing in the ears that
the plaintiff related to this accident. A prior history of a traumatic brain inju: ry
in the late 90s was noted
with symptoms which had resolved. The plaintiff complained of stuttering which
was more severe after
this accident. The plaintiff had received chiropractic treatment with Dr. P
‘olino for neck and back over
the years on a regular basis.
Dr. Ranelle noted complaints of constant pain in the neck radiating to the right
arm with constant low back
pain and cramping in his legs.
Dr. Ranelle performed an examination noting cervical tenderness and
paracervical musculature spasm
extending into both trapezii. Restrictions of c: ervical range were noted with normal
strength, reflexes, and
sensation with negative Hoffmann’s and Spurlin g's maneuvers were negative. Lumba
r spine exam noted
tenderness in the paravertebral musculature with spasm with straight leg raising
in sitting root test negative
without focal neurologic findings in the lower extremity. Dr. Ranelle opined
aggravation of chronic
cervical sprain and strain with probable right cerv! ical radiculopathy with posttraumati
c lumbosacral sprain
and strain with probable lumbar radiculopathy w ith aggravation of a traumatic brain
injury.
www.orthosportsdoc.com
Eyhibit P-I
BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19 PM Pg 8of16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487
Wolintz Nicholas 2021 10 12
Dr, Ranelle recommended a neurolo; gic evaluation for
further workup of his traumatic brain injury as well
as an EMG study of the upper and | lower extremities.
The plaintiff was asked to return to Dr. Polino for
chiropractic treatment and x-rays of the cervical thorac
ic and lumbar spines were ordered by Dr. Ranelle.
Records indicate that the plaintiff followed with Dr.
Ranelle 3 additional occa: sions through February 4,
2019, ongoing complain its were noted as well as treatm
ents by other accid lent doctors. Dr. Ranelle
recommended pain manag ement injection treatments during
his last visit for his ongoing accident-related
complaints.
Records indicate the plaintiff returned to his treating chiropractor
, Dr. August Polino on August 14, 2018,
with records included for my review through June 18, 2019. Dr.
Polino performed treatment for ongoing
complaints of neck and low back pain and pain MRI imaging of the
cervical and lumbar spines at Upright
MRI of Cherry Hill.
From Upright MRI of Che TT ty Hill, dated October 29, 2018, MRI
imaging of the cervical spine reported
diffuse 4 there is disc desic cation with a focal right paramedian
disc herniation. At C4-5, there was disc
desiccation with broad di isc protrusion to the left compromisi
ng the left neural foramen with an
anterolisthesis of C4 on C. 5, likely degenerative in nature. At C5-6, and C7,
and C6-7, there was disc
degeneration with loss of disc signal in disc height with broad disc protrusion
with marginal osteophytes
eccentric to the right at both levels with reversal of the normal cervica
l lordosis apex a t this level perhaps
due to muscle spasm. At C7. -T1, there was disc desiccation with
shallow midline far left lateral disc
protrusion.
From Upright MRI of Cherry Hill, dated October 29, 2018, MRI ima; ging
was performed of the lumbar
spine. At L1-2 and L3-4 there were normal disc signal and normal
di isc height without evidence of disc
hemiation. At L2-3, there was disc desiccation with shallow disc
bul, ging to the left. At L4-5, there was
just desiccation with a broad-based dorsal disc protrusion with left greate
r than right neural foraminal
narrowing. At L5-S1, there was disc desiccation with a right param edian
disc protrusion impinging on
the dural sac.
During the plaintiff's treatment with Dr. Polino, he was referred to
a treating physical therapist in Dr.
Polino’s office, Dr. Cortney Hassler. The plaintiff noted undergoing several months of
physical therapy
treatments under his care,
Records were reviewed from treating doctors at Eastern Neurodi agnostic
Associates, under the care of Dr.
Brett Picciotti.Records indicate Dr. Picciotti performed treatments between September 24
1, 2018, where myofascial treatments with PENS treatments as well
and
November
as myofascial spray and stretch
treatments were performed on 4 occasions:
Additionally, records indicate the plaintiff was referred to a physiatrist
at Eastern Neurodiagnostic
Associates, Dr. Matthew McClure who performed evaluations on October 24,
2018, and January 9, 2019,
for the purpose of EMG testing. Dr. McClure performed bilat te ‘eral lower
extremity EMG testing on
October 24, 2018, indicating an acute left $1 radiculopathy. He pe: formed
bilateral upper extremity EMG
testing on January 9, 2019, reporting a normal study.
Records indicate the plaintiff was evaluated b y Dr. Teena Varghese at Reliev
us where 3 visits were
performed between Decembe r 5, 2018; and Janu: ary 30, 2019, for complaints of headaches, neck, mid
back
and low back pain with radiation of neck pain t ‘0 both upper extremities as well
as radiation of low back
pain to both lower extremities,
BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19 PM Pg9of16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487
Wolintz Nicholas 2021 10 12
Dr. Varghese noted the plaintiff's prior histo ry noting prior ongoi
ng complaints of neck and low back pain
at the level of 4/10 on the VAS. Dr, Vargl hese also noted ongoi
ng prior chiropractic treatment for the
plaintiff's ongoing prior complaints,
Dr. Varghese performed a physical examinat tion noting
restrictions of cervical range with moderate
tenderness along the cervical facets to deep palpation. Range of motion was associ
flexion, extension and lateral movements, ated with pain in
Tri igger points and muscle spasm were identified. Neurologic
findings indicated no focal weakness refle: -X OF sensory changes.
Lumbar spine examination noted
restrictions of motion with paraspinal muscle tenderness and
stiffnes: s with facet discomforts as well as
trigger points and muscle spasm. Lumbar facet loading was positive with straigh t leg raising positive on
the right at 45° with sitting root test positive on the left at 45°. No
focal neurologic findings were noted
in the lower extremities. Dr. Varghese opined causally relat ed injuri
es from this accident including
posttraumatic headache with post traumatic concussion syndr ‘ome with
closed head injury, cervicalgia,
exacerbation of preexistent cervicalgia with cervical disc herniation
with posttraumatic cervical
radiculopathy with posttraumatic lumbago and aggravation and exacerbati
on of preexistent lumbago with
lumbar disc herniation, posttraumatic lumbar radiculopathy, postt
raumatic muscle spasm, and right
shoulder pain.
While Dr. Varghese followed the plaintiff on additional occasions, she noted the plaintiff preferred
conservative treatment and recommended aquatic therapy and contin
ued treatment with doctors at Eastern
Neurodiagnostic Associates,
Records reviewed ftom 8 neuro psychological evaluation of Dr. Joely
Esposito on April 3, 2019. Dr.
Esposito noted complaints in rel lation to the June 2018 accident where he
sustained a concussion. The
plaintiff had been seen by Dr. S hiva Gopal at Eastern Neurodiagnostic Associ
ates and was referred for
cognitive evaluation and recom mendations for appropriate neuropsychological
treatment. Dr. Esposito
took a history of the plaintiff's prior conditions noting a prior motor vehicle
accident 20 years earlier
where he had neuropsychologic al testing followed b y cognitive rehabilitation
and speech therapy. She
recommended a battery of comprehensive tests to assess the plaintiff's neurop
sychological function.
Notably I have no additional treatment records under her care t ‘0 indicate that any
formal testing was ever
performed.
Records indicate that the plaintiff's treatment for this accident ende: din June
2019, with Dr. Polino
authoring a discharge report on June 18, 2019, notin, ig ongoing complaints from
this accident, He opined
cervical disc herniation with radiculopathy at multi ple levels by MRI with sprain
of the thoracic spine
with lumbar radiculopathy with multilevel lumbar herniated disc spine MRI with
SI joint sprains with
acute posttraumatic headache, post-concussion syndrome with acute posttraumatic
stress disorder.
Dr. Polino causally related these findings to the accident in question and opined
permanency from the
same. Records indicate that Dr. Polino went on to si ign a certificate of perman
ency in relation to these
multiple complaints on January 12, 2021.
Previous Injuries and Orthopaedic History: While no prior treatment records were included for
my review, the plaintiff indicated a prior motor vehicle accident in 1998 with
neck, low back and head
injuries he noted undergoing no injection treatments or surgical treatments but
received extensive
treatment for closed head injury at Kessler Rehabilitation in East Orange New Jersey.
Additionally, the plaintiff noted unde going ongoing chiropractic treatment with Dr. Polino
with radiology
records indicating more recent prior x-rays of the neck and back obtained in January
2015, January 2016
BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19 PM Pg10of16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487
Wolintz Nicholas 2021 10 12
and January 2018, prior to this accident. Notably the prior
treatment records of Dr. Polino remain
important to review to understand the plainti iff's prior ongoing compl
aints and prior conditions.
Despite medical records indicating ongoing neck and back com plaints at a level of 4/10 ona VAS
to this June 2018 accident, when asked b yy this examiner the plainti prior
ff denied any ongoing pain at the time
of this June 2018 motor vehicle accident .
Prior psychological treatment records of Stable Com munity Servic
es Outpatient Mental Health were
reviewed between October 30, 2017, and Jul ly 27, 2020.
While prior to this accident the plaintiff
complains of difficulties with depression and r eS! idua from a prior trauma
tic brain injury, the plaintiff was
evaluated on multiple occasions between July 2, 2018, an id July 27, 2020, without ever
noting complaints
from this accident or injury from the same. Additional]
y, th e plaintiff indicated during the visit on July
23, 2018, one month after this accident, that he was at the 20' th annive
rsary from his prior traumatic brain
injury in his 1998 car accident. However, the plaintiff never identified any
complaint or injury from this
June 18, 2018, motor vehicle accident.
Subsequent Injuries and Orthopaedic History: The plaintiff indicated that after this accident he
walked into a glass door. He was seen in the emergence: y department
in Pennsylvania and followed with
Dr. Roger Kurlan at Eastern Neurodiagnostic Associates for this injury.
Dr. Kurlan’s initial evaluation of June 18, 201 9, noted injury on June
11, 2019, where the plaintiff was in
an apartment building and walked into a glass door. He struck his left knee
and facial regions. He denied
loss of consciousness but noted he was dazed at the ti ime of the impact. He was
taken by ambulance to
Jefferson Hospital where he was x- tayed and underwent CT scan imaging with
subsequent release.
The plaintiff complains of constant headaches with a hematoma and swelling
on the nose with an abrasion
above the left elbow. Dizziness and blurred vision were noted with ringing
in the right ear with
concentration and memory issues. The plaintiff was emotional and tearful and suffere
d from left knee
pain and dysfunction.
Dr. Kurland noted findings of a post-concussive syndrome with posttraumatic
cephalgia and a left knee
injury. He followed the plaintiff on other occasions on July 30, 2019, and Septemb
er 5, 2019,
recommending psychological treatment as well as neuropsychological evaluations for the plaintiff
's
alleged injuries from this event. | have no other additional treatment records in relation
to this event.
Work History: While the plaintiff is not currently employed, he indicated that at the time of this
accident he was working as an independent celebrity interviewer for the music industry
, He noted some
loss of work in relation to this accident. He has been receivin, 1g Social Security disability income
since
2005, for his prior traumatic brain injury.
Record Review: For the purpose ofthis report, I was able to review the accident report as well as
psychological treatment records from Stable Community Services Outpatient Mental
Health. The
orthopaedic evaluations of Dr. Robert Ranelle were reviewed. The chiropractic treatmen
t records of Dr.
August Polino were reviewed including his permanency evaluation. Records from Eastern
Neurodiagnostic Associates were reviewed under the care of Dr. Brett Picciotti and Dr. Matthew
McClure.
Evaluations of Dr. Teena Varghese for Relievus were reviewed as well as a neurocog
nitive intake
evaluation of Dr. Joely Esposito,
MRI reports were available for my review as well as prior x-ray films studies,
BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19PM Pg1l1lof16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487
Wolintz Nicholas 2021 10 12
Additional records which would be im; portant to review includ
e: The prior chiropractic treatment records
of Dr. Polino; physical therapy tr eatment records of Dr. Cortn
ey Hassler; the MRI films studies of the
cervical and lumbar spines from Upright MRI of C herry Hill.
Previous Medical History: Rosacea. Prior traumatic brain injury.
Previous Surgical History: Plastic surgery in the 1980s. Bilateral inguinal herniorrhaph
ies, 1990.
Medications: Excedrin Migraine, one pill twice a day.
Allergies: No known drug allergies.
Social History: The plaintiff is not a smoker or drinker.
Current Living Situation: Complaint of lives alone. He never married and has
no children. He
drives a car and performs all acti vities of daily living and is involved
in religious work and volunteer
work. He is not involved in any g ports or gym activities.
Current Limitations and Symptoms: The plaintiff's most significant complaint is neck pain which
is constant. He notes that some day. 's are worse in others. Pain is
worsened by weather changes. He
describes pain down both upper ext remities to his hands which comes and
goes daily and is worsened by
activity.
The plaintiff complains of constant low back pain noting that some days
are worse than others. His pain
is worsened by bending, stooping, lifting, and weather chan; ges. He complains
of tingling and pain in both
lower extremities, without bowel or bladder symptoms.
The plaintiff complains of constant headache.
Physical Examination: On examination the plaintiff's measured height was 5 feet 8 inches and the
plaintiff's measured weight was 132 pounds with a BMI of 20.1. The
plaintiff noted that this was an
average day for his symptoms and that he had taken no pain medications prior to this
evaluation.
The plaintiff was noted to arise easily from the seated position and to walk with
normal gait and cadence.
The plaintiff stood with a forward flexed neck posture with level pelvis and shoulder
s. There was normal
valgus alignment about the lower extremities with normal arch and hindfoot.
There was no lower
extremity wasting to visual inspection.
Examination of the posterior shoulder girdle, with hands at shoulders hei ight and
width against the wall,
noted no evidence of parascapular wasting, winging, or high riding. There was tendern
ess along the
bilateral occiput without cervical, cervicothoracic, thoracic, thoracolumbar, lumbosa
cral, or sciatic notch
discomforts to palpation. There were bilateral t rapezius discomforts with right-
sided medial scapular
border discomforts without lateral scapular border or left-sided discomforts. Tend lerness
was noted in the
bilateral anterior shoulder regions without posterior shoulder discomforts, The T€ WaS NO
spasm or taut
bands noted throughout his spinal and periscapular evaluation. The plaintiff's objective palpatory
evaluation of the spinal and interscapular areas noted subjective com plaints without
objective findings.
Cervical range of motion noted -10° from chin on chest flexion with complaints
of neck pain. Cervical
extension was 0° with complaints of neck pain. Cervical lateral bending was
30° to each side with
BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19 PM Pg12of16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487
Wolintz Nicholas 2021 10 12
complaints of neck pain. Cervical tilt was 10° to each side
with complaints of neck pain. Casual
observation during distraction noted 70° of cervical lateral
bending to each side without observed
discomforts. Motor examination of both upper extremities
was 5/5 throughout all groups with intact
sensation throughout all distributions. The: re Was no evidence
of thenar, hypothenar or intrinsic wasting
in the hands and wrists. Both Tinel's and Pi :halen's signs were
negative bilaterally. Forearm circumference
measured 5 inches proximal to the distal wi tist crease was 20
cm on the right dominant side and 19-1/2 cm
on the left non-dominant side. Deep tend lon reflexes were
1+ and symmetric at the biceps, triceps, and
wrists. Hoffmann’s reflex was negative bilaterally. The plaint
iff's objective cervical spine and upper
extremity neurologic examinations not ed findings of spondylitic
restrictions and discomforts without
objective findings of radiculopathy or any ongoing neurologic
injury process. Volitional restrictions of
motion were noted indicating non physiologic pain complaints.
Shoulder examination noted symmetric forward flexion and abduction to 150° noting
complaints of posterior neck and posterior scapular discomforts. non-concordant
External rotation with the elbows at the
side was 50° without discomfort. Internal rotation behind the back was
symmetri ic to T8. Rotator cuff
strength testing with the elbows at the sidé was 5/5 for both internal
and external rotators. Impingement
findings were positive on the right with subacromial crepitus and negativ
e on the left. In the maximally
internally rotated position complaints of bilateral greater tuberosity
discomfoi rts were noted. The
plaintiff's objective shoulder examinations noted findings of rotator
cuff imp ingement in the right
shoulder without evidence of rotator cuff dysfunction or weakness. Additional] ly, non-concordant pain
complaints were noted.
Elbow examination noted full range of motion with a ne gative Tinel'
s sign over both medial elbows. The
plaintiff's objectiv
e elbow examinations were normal.
Lumbar examination noted the plaintiff could toe and hee! walk wi ithout difficu
lty. Lumbar flexibility
was fingertips to the knees with complaints of hamstring tightness. Lumbar
extension was +30° and non-
tender, Lumbar lateral bending was 40° to each side with complaints of
low back pain. Coplanar trunk
rotation was 70° to each side with non-concordant complaints of low back pain.
Sitting straight leg raising
was negative bilaterally to -30° from full extension, notin; ig complaints of severe
hamstring tightness.
Supine straight leg raising was negative bilaterally at 30° noting complaints of
severe hamstring tightness.
Hip range of motion was full, symmetric, and non: -tender. Flexion abduct
ion and external rotation gave
no discomfort to either sacroiliac or low back ar ‘eas. Motor examination
of both lower extremities was
5/5 throughout all groups with intact sensation ¢ hroughout all distributions. Quadri
ceps circumference
measured one hand’s breadth proximal to the su perior pole of the patella was 38-1/2
cm on the right and
37 om on the left. Calf circumference measured one hand’ s breadth distal to the
inferior pole of the patella
was 33 cm on the right and 32-1/2 cm on the left. Dee; p tendon reflexes were
2+ and symmetric at the
knee jerks and ankle jerks. The plaintiff's toes were dow! -going distally and there
was no clonus in either
lower extremity. The plaintiffs objective lumbar spine and lower extremity neurol
ogic examinations
noted spondylitic restrictions of motion with discomforts in addition to non-concorda
nt pain complaints
and findings of mild left-sided lower extremity wasting su, iggesting left lower extrem
ity radiculopathy.
Radiology Reports Reviewed: From Upright MRI of Cherry Hill, dated October 29, 2018, MRI
imaging of the cervical spine rep orted diffiise 4 there is disc desiccation w ith a focal right
paramedian disc
herniation. At C4-5, there was disc desiccation with broad disc protrusion to the
left compromising the
left neural foramen with an anterolisthesis of C4 on C5, likely d legenerative in nature.
At C5-6, and C7,
and C6-7, there-was disc degeneration with loss of disc signal i in disc height with broad
disc protrusion
with marginal osteophytes eccentric to the right at both levels wi ith reversal of the normal cervic
al lordosis
apex at this level perhaps due to muscle spasm. At C7-T1, there was disc desiccation with
shallow midline
BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19 PM Pg13o0f16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487
Wolintz Nicholas 2021 10 12
far left lateral disc protrusion.
From Upright MRI of Cherry Hill, dated October 29, 2018, MRI imagin
g was performed of the lumbar
spine. At L1-2 and L3-4 there were normal disc signal and normal
disc height without evidence of disc
herniation. At L2-3, there was disc desiccation with shallow disc bulging
to the left. At L4-5, there was
just desiccation with a broad-based dorsal disc protrusion with left greater
than right
neural foraminal
narrowing. At L5-S1, there was disc desiccatio: n with a right paramedian
disc protrusion impinging on
the dural sac.
Radiology Film Studies Reviewed: All films studies reviewed were from Delran Chiropractic.
Dated January 19, 2015, x-rays of the cervical spi ine indicated a single
lateral view noting straightening of
the cervical lordosis with a mild cervical kypho: sis at C5-6. There was an
anterolisthesis of C4 on C5 with
disc space narrowing at C5-6 and C6-7 with ant terior and posterior productive
spurs. The predental space
was closed. The soft tissue shadows at C2 a ind C6 were normal. Posteri
or lamina lines and spinous
processes lined up normally.
Dated January 6, 2016, lateral x-ra: y imaging of the lumbar spine noted
Preview
BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19PM Pglof16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487 LAW OFFICE OF MARK J. MOLZ 1400 Route 38 East, P.O. Box 577 HAINESPORT, NEw JERSEY 08036 PHoNne: (609) 267-8884 Fax: (609) 267-1281 Mark J. Mouz*# #ALSO MEMBEROF FL BAR MARISA P. MOLZ *ALSO MEMBER OF PA BAR ween weno OF CounseL: RICHARD R, DISTEFANO* January 31, 2023 Clerk, Law Division Superior Court of New Jersey Burlington County Courts Facility 49 Rancocas Rd. Mt. Holly, New Jersey 08060 Via eCourts Re: Wolintz v. Kennedy Docket No. BUR-L-1162-20 Dear Sir/Madam: Enclosed please find an original and one copy of Plaintiff's Certification and Brief in opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine regarding the matter above to be filed with the Court. Kindly file and return a copy marked filed. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very Truly Yours, Mark J. Molz, Esq./s/ Mark J. Molz, Esq. MJM/tma Enel. ce: Nicholas Wolintz Brad Parker, Esq. Hon. James J. Ferrelli, J.S.C. BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19 PM Pg2of16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487 MARK J. MOLZ, ESQUIRE 1400 RTE. 38 EAST, PO BOX 577 HAINESPORT, NJ 08036 Attorney ID # 038271985 Telephone 609-267-8884 Facsimile 609-267-1281 Attorney for Plaintiff NICHOLAS D. WOLINTZ SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY BURLINGTON COUNTY Plaintiff LAW DIVISION DOCKET NO. BUR-L-1162-20 Civil Action SONDRA KENNEDY; JOHN DOE 1- CERTIFICATION OF MARK J. MOLZ 10, individually, jointly and severally. Defendant Mark J. Molz of full age hereby certifies: 1 I am an attorney at law in the State of New Jersey and make this certification based upon facts within my personal knowledge. T represent the Plaintiff in the above matter. T have been informed by Dr. Polino’s office that Upright MRI was not closed but has been bought by another entity out of Bankruptcy. Dr. Polino’s office manager Jenny advised that the MRI films still exist. Dr. Polino’s office has advised that they will attempt to obtain the films. Thereby certify the foregoing statements made by me are true. I understand that if any of the foregoing statements made by are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. Dated: 1-31-23 Mark J. Molz, Esq. /s/ Mark J. Molz, Esq. BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19 PM Pg3o0f16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487 MARK J. MOLZ, ESQUIRE 1400 RTE. 38 EAST, PO BOX 577 HAINESPORT, NJ 08036 Attorney ID # 038271985 Telephone 609-267-8884 Facsimile 609-267-1281 Attorney for Plaintiff NICHOLAS D. WOLINTZ SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY BURLINGTON COUNTY Plaintiff LAW DIVISION DOCKET NO. BUR-L-1162-20 Civil Action BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE SONDRA KENNEDY; JOHN DOE 1- 10, individually, jointly and severally. Defendant STATEMENT OF FACTS Defense counsel has not attached the report of their orthopedic expert Dr. Larry Rosenberg dated 10-12-21 to the Defendant’s Motion. Ihave attached the Defense Expert Report as Exhibit P-1. At page 7 of the report, Dr. Rosenberg indicates that he personally reviewed the following radiology films: 1/19/15 X-Rays 1/6/16 X-Rays 1/30/18 X-Rays 8/16/18 X-Rays 8/21/18 X-Rays BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19PM Pg4of16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487 Dr. Rosenberg states at page 6 of his report that he relied upon the following radiological reports that he reviewed: 10/29/18 Upright MRI Report of cervical spine 10/29/18 Upright MRI Report of lumbar spine Dr. Rosenberg does not complain that he is disadvantaged in any way by the fact that Upright MRI has not yet supplied the MRI files. Plaintiff has no fault in connection with the fact that Upright MRI of Cherry Hill has not yet supplied the electronic MRI Records. All experts in this case have relied upon the MRI reports without objection. The Defendants’ application to bar reference to the October 29, 2018 MRI reports should be denied under the unique circumstances of this case. LAW AND ARGUMENT POINTI DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE IF GRANTED, IT COULD HAVE A DISPOSITIVE EFFECT ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS Plaintiff's Motion seeks to bar objective evidence of Plaintiff's orthopedic injuries. Throughout discovery, the Defendant did not raise this issue. Defendant did not seek relief under Rule 4:23-5. New Jersey Court Rule 4:25-8 controls Motions in limine and states: “(1) Definition. In general terms and subject to particular circumstances of a given claim or defense, a motion in limine is defined as an application returnable at trial for a ruling regarding the conduct of the trial, including admissibility of evidence, which motion, if granted, would not have a dispositive impact on a litigant’s case. A dispositive motion falling outside the purview of this rule would include. but_not_be limited to, an application to bar an expert’s testimony in_a matter in which such testimony is required as a matter of law to sustain a party’s burden of proof. A motion in limine shall be part of the pretrial exchange under R. BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19 PM Pg5of16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487 4:25-7(b). As a result, the filing of such motions shall not trigger any filing fee.” In Cho y. Trinitas Regional Medical Center, 443 N.J. Super. 461 (App. Div. 2016), the Court states: “The fact that this misuse of the motion in limine occurs sufficiently often to win our notice, despite our repeated cautions against such practice, leads us to conclude it necessary to state clearly what a motion in limine is not. It is not a summary judgment motion that happens to be filed on the eve of trial. When granting a motion will result in the dismissal of a plaintiffs case or the suppression of a defendant's defenses, the motion is subject to Rule 4:46, the rule that governs summary judgment motions.” id. Here, Defendant seeks to bar objective evidence of Plaintiff's orthopedic injuries. Plaintiff has no control whether Upright MRI has closed or was purchsed in bankruptcy. In addition, Defendant’s expert did not complain and in fact relied on the MRI reports in his report that is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Accordingly, the Defendant’s Motion to bar testimony relating to Plaintiff's MRI films should be denied. POINT II DR. ROSENBERG ACKNOWLEDGES PLAINTIFF’S PRIOR TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURIES HAD RESOLVED In his report at page 1, Dr. Rosenberg states: “A prior history of a traumatic brain injury in the late 90s was noted with symptoms which had resolved.” Accordingly, Plaintiff has not alleged an aggravation of a pre-existing injury and a POLK report/analysis is not required. ““When a plaintiff does not plead aggravation of pre-existing injuries, a comparative analysis is not required to make that demonstration. AICRA does not impose on plaintiff any special requirement for a comparative-medical BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19 PM Pg6of16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487 analysis in respect of causation in order to vault the verbal threshold.” Davidson v. Slater, 189 N.J. 166, 170 (N.J. 2007). CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the Defendant’s Motion be denied. Dated: 1/31/23 MarkJ. Moiz, Esq. /s/ Mark J. Molz, Esq. ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19 PM Pg7of16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487 Orthopaedic & Sports Specialists, PC Larry S. Rosenberg, M.D. FAAOS 798 South Route 73 West Berlin, NJ 08091 Ph (856) 809-9001 Fax (856) 809-9003 October 12, 2021 Mr. Brad A. Parker Parker Young & Antinoff, LLC 2 Eves Drive, Suite 200 Marlton, NJ 08053 Re: Nicholas Wolintz Dear Mr. Parker: I came to evaluate Nicholas Wolintz at your request on Septe mber 27, 2021, regarding alleged injuries sustained from the motor vehicle accid lent of June 18, 2018. Face time spent with the plaintiff for the purpose of this evaluation was 1 hour and 8 minutes. Given the current Covid-19 guidelines were followed during the evaluation of this p laintiff. pandemic, all CDC History: As you know, the plaintiff is a 58-year- old right-hand dominant man who reports a motor vehicle accident on June 18, 2018. At that time, he was a belted driver whose vehicle was movin g and struck along the front passenger side. The plainti ff noted no other contac t to his vehicle, without airbag deployment, windshield, or glass damage. The plaintiff self-extricated from his vehicle and was ambulat ory at the scene. He indicated his vehi icle was drivable after this accident, but it was never fixed, The accident report was available for my revi lew indicating no complaints of injury at the scene without EMS evaluation or emergency room treatment it after this accident. ‘The plaintiff indicated that he was directed by his attorney under the care of a treating orthopaedist, Dr. Robert Ranelle. Records indicated 4 visits b etween August 6, 2018, and Februa ry 4, 2019, in relation to complaints of severe neck and low back pai in as well as headaches, dizziness, and ringing in the ears that the plaintiff related to this accident. A prior history of a traumatic brain inju: ry in the late 90s was noted with symptoms which had resolved. The plaintiff complained of stuttering which was more severe after this accident. The plaintiff had received chiropractic treatment with Dr. P ‘olino for neck and back over the years on a regular basis. Dr. Ranelle noted complaints of constant pain in the neck radiating to the right arm with constant low back pain and cramping in his legs. Dr. Ranelle performed an examination noting cervical tenderness and paracervical musculature spasm extending into both trapezii. Restrictions of c: ervical range were noted with normal strength, reflexes, and sensation with negative Hoffmann’s and Spurlin g's maneuvers were negative. Lumba r spine exam noted tenderness in the paravertebral musculature with spasm with straight leg raising in sitting root test negative without focal neurologic findings in the lower extremity. Dr. Ranelle opined aggravation of chronic cervical sprain and strain with probable right cerv! ical radiculopathy with posttraumati c lumbosacral sprain and strain with probable lumbar radiculopathy w ith aggravation of a traumatic brain injury. www.orthosportsdoc.com Eyhibit P-I BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19 PM Pg 8of16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487 Wolintz Nicholas 2021 10 12 Dr, Ranelle recommended a neurolo; gic evaluation for further workup of his traumatic brain injury as well as an EMG study of the upper and | lower extremities. The plaintiff was asked to return to Dr. Polino for chiropractic treatment and x-rays of the cervical thorac ic and lumbar spines were ordered by Dr. Ranelle. Records indicate that the plaintiff followed with Dr. Ranelle 3 additional occa: sions through February 4, 2019, ongoing complain its were noted as well as treatm ents by other accid lent doctors. Dr. Ranelle recommended pain manag ement injection treatments during his last visit for his ongoing accident-related complaints. Records indicate the plaintiff returned to his treating chiropractor , Dr. August Polino on August 14, 2018, with records included for my review through June 18, 2019. Dr. Polino performed treatment for ongoing complaints of neck and low back pain and pain MRI imaging of the cervical and lumbar spines at Upright MRI of Cherry Hill. From Upright MRI of Che TT ty Hill, dated October 29, 2018, MRI imaging of the cervical spine reported diffuse 4 there is disc desic cation with a focal right paramedian disc herniation. At C4-5, there was disc desiccation with broad di isc protrusion to the left compromisi ng the left neural foramen with an anterolisthesis of C4 on C. 5, likely degenerative in nature. At C5-6, and C7, and C6-7, there was disc degeneration with loss of disc signal in disc height with broad disc protrusion with marginal osteophytes eccentric to the right at both levels with reversal of the normal cervica l lordosis apex a t this level perhaps due to muscle spasm. At C7. -T1, there was disc desiccation with shallow midline far left lateral disc protrusion. From Upright MRI of Cherry Hill, dated October 29, 2018, MRI ima; ging was performed of the lumbar spine. At L1-2 and L3-4 there were normal disc signal and normal di isc height without evidence of disc hemiation. At L2-3, there was disc desiccation with shallow disc bul, ging to the left. At L4-5, there was just desiccation with a broad-based dorsal disc protrusion with left greate r than right neural foraminal narrowing. At L5-S1, there was disc desiccation with a right param edian disc protrusion impinging on the dural sac. During the plaintiff's treatment with Dr. Polino, he was referred to a treating physical therapist in Dr. Polino’s office, Dr. Cortney Hassler. The plaintiff noted undergoing several months of physical therapy treatments under his care, Records were reviewed from treating doctors at Eastern Neurodi agnostic Associates, under the care of Dr. Brett Picciotti.Records indicate Dr. Picciotti performed treatments between September 24 1, 2018, where myofascial treatments with PENS treatments as well and November as myofascial spray and stretch treatments were performed on 4 occasions: Additionally, records indicate the plaintiff was referred to a physiatrist at Eastern Neurodiagnostic Associates, Dr. Matthew McClure who performed evaluations on October 24, 2018, and January 9, 2019, for the purpose of EMG testing. Dr. McClure performed bilat te ‘eral lower extremity EMG testing on October 24, 2018, indicating an acute left $1 radiculopathy. He pe: formed bilateral upper extremity EMG testing on January 9, 2019, reporting a normal study. Records indicate the plaintiff was evaluated b y Dr. Teena Varghese at Reliev us where 3 visits were performed between Decembe r 5, 2018; and Janu: ary 30, 2019, for complaints of headaches, neck, mid back and low back pain with radiation of neck pain t ‘0 both upper extremities as well as radiation of low back pain to both lower extremities, BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19 PM Pg9of16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487 Wolintz Nicholas 2021 10 12 Dr. Varghese noted the plaintiff's prior histo ry noting prior ongoi ng complaints of neck and low back pain at the level of 4/10 on the VAS. Dr, Vargl hese also noted ongoi ng prior chiropractic treatment for the plaintiff's ongoing prior complaints, Dr. Varghese performed a physical examinat tion noting restrictions of cervical range with moderate tenderness along the cervical facets to deep palpation. Range of motion was associ flexion, extension and lateral movements, ated with pain in Tri igger points and muscle spasm were identified. Neurologic findings indicated no focal weakness refle: -X OF sensory changes. Lumbar spine examination noted restrictions of motion with paraspinal muscle tenderness and stiffnes: s with facet discomforts as well as trigger points and muscle spasm. Lumbar facet loading was positive with straigh t leg raising positive on the right at 45° with sitting root test positive on the left at 45°. No focal neurologic findings were noted in the lower extremities. Dr. Varghese opined causally relat ed injuri es from this accident including posttraumatic headache with post traumatic concussion syndr ‘ome with closed head injury, cervicalgia, exacerbation of preexistent cervicalgia with cervical disc herniation with posttraumatic cervical radiculopathy with posttraumatic lumbago and aggravation and exacerbati on of preexistent lumbago with lumbar disc herniation, posttraumatic lumbar radiculopathy, postt raumatic muscle spasm, and right shoulder pain. While Dr. Varghese followed the plaintiff on additional occasions, she noted the plaintiff preferred conservative treatment and recommended aquatic therapy and contin ued treatment with doctors at Eastern Neurodiagnostic Associates, Records reviewed ftom 8 neuro psychological evaluation of Dr. Joely Esposito on April 3, 2019. Dr. Esposito noted complaints in rel lation to the June 2018 accident where he sustained a concussion. The plaintiff had been seen by Dr. S hiva Gopal at Eastern Neurodiagnostic Associ ates and was referred for cognitive evaluation and recom mendations for appropriate neuropsychological treatment. Dr. Esposito took a history of the plaintiff's prior conditions noting a prior motor vehicle accident 20 years earlier where he had neuropsychologic al testing followed b y cognitive rehabilitation and speech therapy. She recommended a battery of comprehensive tests to assess the plaintiff's neurop sychological function. Notably I have no additional treatment records under her care t ‘0 indicate that any formal testing was ever performed. Records indicate that the plaintiff's treatment for this accident ende: din June 2019, with Dr. Polino authoring a discharge report on June 18, 2019, notin, ig ongoing complaints from this accident, He opined cervical disc herniation with radiculopathy at multi ple levels by MRI with sprain of the thoracic spine with lumbar radiculopathy with multilevel lumbar herniated disc spine MRI with SI joint sprains with acute posttraumatic headache, post-concussion syndrome with acute posttraumatic stress disorder. Dr. Polino causally related these findings to the accident in question and opined permanency from the same. Records indicate that Dr. Polino went on to si ign a certificate of perman ency in relation to these multiple complaints on January 12, 2021. Previous Injuries and Orthopaedic History: While no prior treatment records were included for my review, the plaintiff indicated a prior motor vehicle accident in 1998 with neck, low back and head injuries he noted undergoing no injection treatments or surgical treatments but received extensive treatment for closed head injury at Kessler Rehabilitation in East Orange New Jersey. Additionally, the plaintiff noted unde going ongoing chiropractic treatment with Dr. Polino with radiology records indicating more recent prior x-rays of the neck and back obtained in January 2015, January 2016 BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19 PM Pg10of16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487 Wolintz Nicholas 2021 10 12 and January 2018, prior to this accident. Notably the prior treatment records of Dr. Polino remain important to review to understand the plainti iff's prior ongoing compl aints and prior conditions. Despite medical records indicating ongoing neck and back com plaints at a level of 4/10 ona VAS to this June 2018 accident, when asked b yy this examiner the plainti prior ff denied any ongoing pain at the time of this June 2018 motor vehicle accident . Prior psychological treatment records of Stable Com munity Servic es Outpatient Mental Health were reviewed between October 30, 2017, and Jul ly 27, 2020. While prior to this accident the plaintiff complains of difficulties with depression and r eS! idua from a prior trauma tic brain injury, the plaintiff was evaluated on multiple occasions between July 2, 2018, an id July 27, 2020, without ever noting complaints from this accident or injury from the same. Additional] y, th e plaintiff indicated during the visit on July 23, 2018, one month after this accident, that he was at the 20' th annive rsary from his prior traumatic brain injury in his 1998 car accident. However, the plaintiff never identified any complaint or injury from this June 18, 2018, motor vehicle accident. Subsequent Injuries and Orthopaedic History: The plaintiff indicated that after this accident he walked into a glass door. He was seen in the emergence: y department in Pennsylvania and followed with Dr. Roger Kurlan at Eastern Neurodiagnostic Associates for this injury. Dr. Kurlan’s initial evaluation of June 18, 201 9, noted injury on June 11, 2019, where the plaintiff was in an apartment building and walked into a glass door. He struck his left knee and facial regions. He denied loss of consciousness but noted he was dazed at the ti ime of the impact. He was taken by ambulance to Jefferson Hospital where he was x- tayed and underwent CT scan imaging with subsequent release. The plaintiff complains of constant headaches with a hematoma and swelling on the nose with an abrasion above the left elbow. Dizziness and blurred vision were noted with ringing in the right ear with concentration and memory issues. The plaintiff was emotional and tearful and suffere d from left knee pain and dysfunction. Dr. Kurland noted findings of a post-concussive syndrome with posttraumatic cephalgia and a left knee injury. He followed the plaintiff on other occasions on July 30, 2019, and Septemb er 5, 2019, recommending psychological treatment as well as neuropsychological evaluations for the plaintiff 's alleged injuries from this event. | have no other additional treatment records in relation to this event. Work History: While the plaintiff is not currently employed, he indicated that at the time of this accident he was working as an independent celebrity interviewer for the music industry , He noted some loss of work in relation to this accident. He has been receivin, 1g Social Security disability income since 2005, for his prior traumatic brain injury. Record Review: For the purpose ofthis report, I was able to review the accident report as well as psychological treatment records from Stable Community Services Outpatient Mental Health. The orthopaedic evaluations of Dr. Robert Ranelle were reviewed. The chiropractic treatmen t records of Dr. August Polino were reviewed including his permanency evaluation. Records from Eastern Neurodiagnostic Associates were reviewed under the care of Dr. Brett Picciotti and Dr. Matthew McClure. Evaluations of Dr. Teena Varghese for Relievus were reviewed as well as a neurocog nitive intake evaluation of Dr. Joely Esposito, MRI reports were available for my review as well as prior x-ray films studies, BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19PM Pg1l1lof16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487 Wolintz Nicholas 2021 10 12 Additional records which would be im; portant to review includ e: The prior chiropractic treatment records of Dr. Polino; physical therapy tr eatment records of Dr. Cortn ey Hassler; the MRI films studies of the cervical and lumbar spines from Upright MRI of C herry Hill. Previous Medical History: Rosacea. Prior traumatic brain injury. Previous Surgical History: Plastic surgery in the 1980s. Bilateral inguinal herniorrhaph ies, 1990. Medications: Excedrin Migraine, one pill twice a day. Allergies: No known drug allergies. Social History: The plaintiff is not a smoker or drinker. Current Living Situation: Complaint of lives alone. He never married and has no children. He drives a car and performs all acti vities of daily living and is involved in religious work and volunteer work. He is not involved in any g ports or gym activities. Current Limitations and Symptoms: The plaintiff's most significant complaint is neck pain which is constant. He notes that some day. 's are worse in others. Pain is worsened by weather changes. He describes pain down both upper ext remities to his hands which comes and goes daily and is worsened by activity. The plaintiff complains of constant low back pain noting that some days are worse than others. His pain is worsened by bending, stooping, lifting, and weather chan; ges. He complains of tingling and pain in both lower extremities, without bowel or bladder symptoms. The plaintiff complains of constant headache. Physical Examination: On examination the plaintiff's measured height was 5 feet 8 inches and the plaintiff's measured weight was 132 pounds with a BMI of 20.1. The plaintiff noted that this was an average day for his symptoms and that he had taken no pain medications prior to this evaluation. The plaintiff was noted to arise easily from the seated position and to walk with normal gait and cadence. The plaintiff stood with a forward flexed neck posture with level pelvis and shoulder s. There was normal valgus alignment about the lower extremities with normal arch and hindfoot. There was no lower extremity wasting to visual inspection. Examination of the posterior shoulder girdle, with hands at shoulders hei ight and width against the wall, noted no evidence of parascapular wasting, winging, or high riding. There was tendern ess along the bilateral occiput without cervical, cervicothoracic, thoracic, thoracolumbar, lumbosa cral, or sciatic notch discomforts to palpation. There were bilateral t rapezius discomforts with right- sided medial scapular border discomforts without lateral scapular border or left-sided discomforts. Tend lerness was noted in the bilateral anterior shoulder regions without posterior shoulder discomforts, The T€ WaS NO spasm or taut bands noted throughout his spinal and periscapular evaluation. The plaintiff's objective palpatory evaluation of the spinal and interscapular areas noted subjective com plaints without objective findings. Cervical range of motion noted -10° from chin on chest flexion with complaints of neck pain. Cervical extension was 0° with complaints of neck pain. Cervical lateral bending was 30° to each side with BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19 PM Pg12of16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487 Wolintz Nicholas 2021 10 12 complaints of neck pain. Cervical tilt was 10° to each side with complaints of neck pain. Casual observation during distraction noted 70° of cervical lateral bending to each side without observed discomforts. Motor examination of both upper extremities was 5/5 throughout all groups with intact sensation throughout all distributions. The: re Was no evidence of thenar, hypothenar or intrinsic wasting in the hands and wrists. Both Tinel's and Pi :halen's signs were negative bilaterally. Forearm circumference measured 5 inches proximal to the distal wi tist crease was 20 cm on the right dominant side and 19-1/2 cm on the left non-dominant side. Deep tend lon reflexes were 1+ and symmetric at the biceps, triceps, and wrists. Hoffmann’s reflex was negative bilaterally. The plaint iff's objective cervical spine and upper extremity neurologic examinations not ed findings of spondylitic restrictions and discomforts without objective findings of radiculopathy or any ongoing neurologic injury process. Volitional restrictions of motion were noted indicating non physiologic pain complaints. Shoulder examination noted symmetric forward flexion and abduction to 150° noting complaints of posterior neck and posterior scapular discomforts. non-concordant External rotation with the elbows at the side was 50° without discomfort. Internal rotation behind the back was symmetri ic to T8. Rotator cuff strength testing with the elbows at the sidé was 5/5 for both internal and external rotators. Impingement findings were positive on the right with subacromial crepitus and negativ e on the left. In the maximally internally rotated position complaints of bilateral greater tuberosity discomfoi rts were noted. The plaintiff's objective shoulder examinations noted findings of rotator cuff imp ingement in the right shoulder without evidence of rotator cuff dysfunction or weakness. Additional] ly, non-concordant pain complaints were noted. Elbow examination noted full range of motion with a ne gative Tinel' s sign over both medial elbows. The plaintiff's objectiv e elbow examinations were normal. Lumbar examination noted the plaintiff could toe and hee! walk wi ithout difficu lty. Lumbar flexibility was fingertips to the knees with complaints of hamstring tightness. Lumbar extension was +30° and non- tender, Lumbar lateral bending was 40° to each side with complaints of low back pain. Coplanar trunk rotation was 70° to each side with non-concordant complaints of low back pain. Sitting straight leg raising was negative bilaterally to -30° from full extension, notin; ig complaints of severe hamstring tightness. Supine straight leg raising was negative bilaterally at 30° noting complaints of severe hamstring tightness. Hip range of motion was full, symmetric, and non: -tender. Flexion abduct ion and external rotation gave no discomfort to either sacroiliac or low back ar ‘eas. Motor examination of both lower extremities was 5/5 throughout all groups with intact sensation ¢ hroughout all distributions. Quadri ceps circumference measured one hand’s breadth proximal to the su perior pole of the patella was 38-1/2 cm on the right and 37 om on the left. Calf circumference measured one hand’ s breadth distal to the inferior pole of the patella was 33 cm on the right and 32-1/2 cm on the left. Dee; p tendon reflexes were 2+ and symmetric at the knee jerks and ankle jerks. The plaintiff's toes were dow! -going distally and there was no clonus in either lower extremity. The plaintiffs objective lumbar spine and lower extremity neurol ogic examinations noted spondylitic restrictions of motion with discomforts in addition to non-concorda nt pain complaints and findings of mild left-sided lower extremity wasting su, iggesting left lower extrem ity radiculopathy. Radiology Reports Reviewed: From Upright MRI of Cherry Hill, dated October 29, 2018, MRI imaging of the cervical spine rep orted diffiise 4 there is disc desiccation w ith a focal right paramedian disc herniation. At C4-5, there was disc desiccation with broad disc protrusion to the left compromising the left neural foramen with an anterolisthesis of C4 on C5, likely d legenerative in nature. At C5-6, and C7, and C6-7, there-was disc degeneration with loss of disc signal i in disc height with broad disc protrusion with marginal osteophytes eccentric to the right at both levels wi ith reversal of the normal cervic al lordosis apex at this level perhaps due to muscle spasm. At C7-T1, there was disc desiccation with shallow midline BUR-L-001162-20 01/31/2023 5:14:19 PM Pg13o0f16 Trans ID: LCV2023411487 Wolintz Nicholas 2021 10 12 far left lateral disc protrusion. From Upright MRI of Cherry Hill, dated October 29, 2018, MRI imagin g was performed of the lumbar spine. At L1-2 and L3-4 there were normal disc signal and normal disc height without evidence of disc herniation. At L2-3, there was disc desiccation with shallow disc bulging to the left. At L4-5, there was just desiccation with a broad-based dorsal disc protrusion with left greater than right neural foraminal narrowing. At L5-S1, there was disc desiccatio: n with a right paramedian disc protrusion impinging on the dural sac. Radiology Film Studies Reviewed: All films studies reviewed were from Delran Chiropractic. Dated January 19, 2015, x-rays of the cervical spi ine indicated a single lateral view noting straightening of the cervical lordosis with a mild cervical kypho: sis at C5-6. There was an anterolisthesis of C4 on C5 with disc space narrowing at C5-6 and C6-7 with ant terior and posterior productive spurs. The predental space was closed. The soft tissue shadows at C2 a ind C6 were normal. Posteri or lamina lines and spinous processes lined up normally. Dated January 6, 2016, lateral x-ra: y imaging of the lumbar spine noted