State of ew JerseyOFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW33 Washington StreetNewark, NJ 07102(973) 648-6008A copy oi? the administrative lawjudge's decision is enclosed.This decision was mailed to the parties0.. mgll?i State of New JerseyOFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAWoecisiouOAL DKT. N0. 1_AGENCY DKT. --JAMES PIEFER.Petitioner,V.BOARD OF TRUSTEES, POLICE ANDRETIREMENT SYSTEM,Respondent.Gary W. Boguski, Esq., for petitioner (Taylor Eoguski, attorneys)Nels J. Lauritzen, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent (John J. Hoffman.Acting Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney)Record Closed: February 5, 2014 Decided: March 11, 2014BEFORE -- ALJ:STATEMENT OF THE CASEPetitioner James Pieper (petitioner or Pieper) appeals the determination ofrespondent Board of Trustees of the Police and Firemen's Retirement System (PFRS orBoard) denying his application (or accidental disability retirement benefits. On March 1,2012. Pieper tiied an application with the PFRS {or accidental disability retirementNew an Equal /fmpiuyrrOAL DKT. NO. TYP 12438-12based upon injuries that he sustained on June 25, 2010, when he was involved inbreaking up an altercation between two inmates, together with his inability to return towork.On July 17, 2012, the Board found that Pieper was not totally and permanentlydisabled from the performance of his regular and assigned duties and denied theapplication. Instead, the Board advised Pieper that he was quali?ed for a deferredretirement, allowing Pieper to be eligible for retirement bene?ts on the ?rst ofthe month after he reached the normal retirement age designated for him in the pensionsystem. By letter dated August 1, 2012, Pieper appealed the Board's determination andrequested an administrative hearing. On September 11, 2012, the matter was receivedby the Of?ce of Administrative Law (OAL) as a contested case, which was thenassigned to the undersigned for hearing. Hearings were held on September 9 and 24,2013. The record closed after receipt of post-hearing submissions and a telephoneconference was conducted.ISSUEThe issue to be resolved is whether Pieper became totally and permanentlydisabled as a result of the altercation that petitioner alleged was the cause of hisinjuries, and, if so, whether all the elements enunciated in Richardson vjoard ofTrustees, Police and Firemen?s Retirement Svstem. 192 189 (2007), have beensatis?ed.TESTIMONYJames PieperPetitioner testi?ed on his own behalf. He stated that he was employed by theJuvenile Justice Commission as a correction of?cer for eleven years. His main_responsibility was to respond to emergencies at the jail, such as inmates ?ghting,inmates assaulting staff and/or civilians, and other emergencies such as ?res caused byinmates in their cells or the ?ooding of their toilets. In addition, he performed securityOAL DKT. NO. TYP 12438-12checks inside and outside of the facility. Throughout his shift Pieper was required towalk the perimeter of the housing units inside the facility to ensure the inmates? safety.There were six housing units at the facility. Some were located on the uppertiers, which required him to climb the stairs to pass each cell to check on the inmatesand then climb down the stairs to the lower tier, to check the inmates at that level.Pieper stated that at every facility in the jail, inmates were searched for contraband,including in the recreational yard, the indoor recreation room and staff of?ces. Fenceswere also checked to ensure that there were no security issues.Pieper testi?ed that most of the time spent on security checks required him tobend, stand or walk, rarely sitting.On June 25, 2010, while Pieper was working his regular assignment as acorrection of?cer, a ?Code 10-33? was communicated. A Code 10-33 is an emergencycall, to which Pieper was required to respond.He was the ?rst of?cer to arrive at the housing unit, where he saw two inmates?ghting. He intervened, grabbing one of the inmates to restrain him. The inmate hegrabbed was still combative andlrefused to abide by his order to stop. The inmateturned around as Pieper was restraining him with his head underneath Pieper?s rightarm. Pieper restrained the inmate by holding him in a headlock. The inmate remainedcombative. In holding the inmate in a headlock, Pieper dropped his weight to theground in order to bring the inmate down. in the process, the inmate landed on top ofhim.Pieper testi?ed that during the incident he sustained an injury to his back, neckand trapezius-muscle area. Initially, Pieper was sent to the medical station at thefacility,.where his injuries were documented. He was then sent to Robert WoodJohnson Hospital for x.-rays, which were negative for any fractures. Pieper wasthereafter sent to various workers? compensation doctors and received physical therapy.He stated that after the first week of physical therapy ?the pain got much worse." AnOAL DKT. NO. TYP 12438-12MRI was then conducted, which disclosed bulging and herniated discs. He thenunderwent two surgeries, fusions in the neck and lower back. .During the course of his treatment, Pieper had to undergo a functional capacityevaluation (FCE). He stated that the results of the FCE placed him on a permanent?fty-pound weight restriction, and imposed restrictions on bending, standing, walking forlong periods of time, and other activities, and these restrictions have prohibited him from?returning to the job of correction of?cer. After the FCE, Pieper was again seen by Dr.Marc Levine, an orthopedic surgeon, who also placed Pieper on a permanent ?fty-pound weight restriction, con?rming that he was unable to return to his duty.Subsequent to the surgeries, Pieper has been experiencing pain on a daily basisand has been incapable of running, jumping, frequently bending down, or lifting anythingheavy, including his daughter, who weighs approximately thirty-?ve pounds. He statedthat he can only hold his daughter for a few seconds before he experiences a sharppain in his lower back and then has to put her down or hand her to someone else. Hefurther stated that he is awake most of the night, ??nearly every night, tossing and turningtrying to find a comfortable position to get in." He added that holding anything weighingmore than several pounds in his right arm will cause his arm to shake, and feel weak.Pieper testi?ed that he has a workers? compensation claim and a Social SecurityDisability claim pending. The Social Security Disability claim is only for a certain periodof time, called a closed period. Pieper said that if he were to prevail in the matter beforethe undersigned, there would be no continuing Social Security Disability bene?ts.Pieper stated that prior to the incident of June 25, 2010, he never experiencedany injury to his back. but in 2009 he sustained an injury to his neck, also during thecourse of his duties.Pieper?s last date of work was June 25, 2010. He was instructed to turn in hisbadge and ?ll out paperwork.OAL DKT NO TYP 12438-12Pieper stated that it was some time afler the incident before he had the fusionsurgeries. Other methods of treatment were tried. such as epidural injections. Thespinal-fusion surgery was performed on March 8, 2011. and the cervical fusion onSeptember 22, 2011, following which he underwent physical therapy for both the neckand back, After therapy there was no improvement with pain and range of motion,Pieper was sent for the FCE in November 2011. The results of that examination weregiven in late December 2011.-- D.0.. a Iioensed medical practitioner in the state oi NewJersey. testified on behalf of Pieper. Dr. 'is a board-certified anesthesiologistthrough the American Board of Anesthesiology, and is also board certified in painmanagement through the American Association of Physician Specialists. He isrecognized in pain management through the American Academy of Pain Management.Dr. -emified on behalf of Pieper as an expert in osteopathic medicine and painmanagement.Dr. 2 testified that he maintains a private practice treating patients. whichoomprises 10 percent of his time. The rest of his time is devoted to oonductingevaluations such as in this matter. He does not periorm surgery. Dr. tatedthat he has previously been qualified as an expert witness in osteopathic medicine andpain management. where he has conducted examinations of litigants. He has tesllfiedover the past fourteen years about 200 to 300 times, averaging about two times permonth. He has testitied on various occasions in the Superior Court and administrativecourts.Dr. --saw Pieper on two occasions, the first time. according to his report,on April 9, 2012. and then again on August 17, 2012 (Dr. zaiso provided asupplemental addendum report dated January 7. 2013). Pieper was not his patient.Dr.'rendered a diagnosis of Piepefs lower back as: disc herniation at LSIS1with an associated annular tear of the disc at bulging annulus at statuspost--iumbar epidural steroid injections and status post--surgical intervention to theGAL DKT4 NO. TYP 12433-12lumbar spine, including lumbar interbody fusion at placement of two interbodycages at LSIS1 and anterior instrumentation at L5IS1,The doctor then explained the difference between an annular tear and a discherniation. He explained that in between the vertebrae, which are bony areas, there arediscs. The discs allow for motion, tiexion and extension and also serve as protectors.Within the disc there is a ieliy-like substance called the nucleus pulposua. Surroundingthe disc is a hard leathery substance. which prevents the nucleus pulposus fromentering the spinal cord. An annular tear is a tear of the leathery substance surroundingthe disc, whereas a herniated disc is a protrusion or extrusion of the contents of thejelly-like material.He further explained that there is significance to a discogram. which is aprocedure in which the patient lies flat on his or her stomach on the table. The treatingdoctor than inserts a needle. which is greater than six inches in length. The patientremains conscious, as the doctor pushes the needle, under x-ray or fluoroscopicguidance, through the skin. into the submuscular tissue and then directly into the discitself at one ievei. He then repeats the same procedure at the second, third, fourth andfifth levels, each time directly into the disc. He then asks the patient if there is painradiating into the leg. The procedure also measures pressures within the disc, Thepressures are measured in order to determine if there is leakage. At the same time, adye is injected, which is checked under a CT scan, during which a picture is obtained todetermine if the dye is leaking from the disc. if dye were leaking, that would indicate anannular tear. which is diagnostically signilicant for internal derangement of the disc, notalways detected by MRI. The entire procedure is extremely painful.The petitioners discograrn was positive at the L5IS1 level for an annular tear.indicating pathology at the level. Dr. 'further explained "cages appliedwith instrumentation" as cages pieced one vertebrae or bone to another to providefixation. The result is lack of movement in that area of the spine.Dr, 'stated that petitioners ieg could only be raised to 50 degrees insteadof the normal 90 degrees. Forward fiexion of petitioner's neck was reduced from theCAL DKT NO TYP 12e3E~12norm of 45 degrees to 20 degrees, and backward flexion was reduced from the norm of45 degrees to 25 degrees. Rotation bilaterally was reduced from 60 degrees to 40degrees. He stated that the "neurological exam was within normal limits."Dr. 'opined, within a reasonable degree ol medical probability, that theinjuries Pieper sustained during the June 25, 2010, incident were causally related to hisdisabling condition. He Iestified that Pieper would not be able to assist his fellowofficers in breaking up fights or protecting civilians, and was unable to run, bend andsearch the prison, even under cell beds, if needed.Susan Jean PieperSusan Jean Pisper, petitioners mother, testitied on his behalf. She testified thatPleper and his wife and four-year-old daughter have been living with her for the past twoyears. She stated that his functioning level has significantly deteriorated. She observedher son in pain, unable to move the way he used to. getting very little sleep. and walkingaround her house at night. Ms. Pieper recalled seeing him attempt to sleep on thecouch. but later finding him on the floor. Because he does not sleep at night, heappears very lethargic during the day, unable to function without diffioulty.Mrs. Pieper further testified that she has had to take care of her son's four-year-old daughter during the day because he has been unable to take care of her. When herson attempted to pick up his daughter he could only hold her for a short period of time.The little girl is "rambunctlous, she runs. she wants to play. and those are the things thatare very difficult for him." She testified that Pieper does not do any chores, such ascleaning or yard work. There has been very little he can do physically.-, MD., a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, testified on behalf ofrespondent. He is licensed in New Jersey, and New York. DAL DKT. NO. TYP 12435-12Dr. explained that orthopedics involves surgical and non-surgicalaspects of medicine. He said that each lumbar surgical procedure has its own set ofrisks and anticipated results. He estimated that he spends 80 percent of his timetreating patients. Dr. 'explained that an organization called United had acontract with the State to do medical evaluations. He was asked to do some exams forthat organization, and then a new company was contracted, IMX Medical ManagementServices, and he was also asked by that company to do exams, so his participation insuch evaluations has been ongoing.Dr. 'stimaled that he sees one patient per week on behalf of the pensionboards, and about five patients per week for other agencies. had performedbetween 750 and 90!} operations per year since 1972 up until three years ago, when hiswife became ill and passed away. He continues to treat patients with spinal disorders.which comprises more than one-half of his practice, although he no longer performssurgery.Dr.-examined Pieper on April 12. 2012. Pieper complained of low-backpain went into his right and leit legs, causing weakness. Pieper advised him thatthe pain was greater on the right, accompanied by weakness and tingling in his toes.He also mentioned that he had preoperative back and right-leg pain that went down tohis heel. Pieper told him that his had gotten somewhat better. He statedthat he was no longer receiving treatment, and that on a pain scale of zero to ten, hispain was about a five. During the examination, Pieper had minor complaints with regardto his back. Dr. 'reiterated on cross-examination that Pieper had back painprevious to this examination, but complained of no pain at the examination. Dr. did not find any spasm, tenderness or swelling.Pieper described the incident ofJune 25, 2010, to Dr. explaining how heinjured his back and right elbow when he fell on his back while breaking up a tightbetween two inmates. He said that he was driven to Robert Wood Johnson UniversityHospital by a fellow offioer, where x-rays were taken. The x-rays were negative forfracture and he was treated with medication and an ice pack, and then was discharged,Pieper followed up with his primary care physician and underwent further x-rays and anOAL DKT. NO TVP 12438-12MRI. Dr. -- opined that Pieper's initial treatment was appropriate and that he hada superb result.Pieper also gave Dr. history of previous injuries. In 2009, Peiperinjured his neck while restraining inmates. He also had a history of a cervical fusion attwo levels. He also related that on March 9. 2011, he underwent a lumbar fusion atL5IS1. "[h]is post-operative history was really a very outstandingresult,' and on an objective basis, he opined that Pieper did extremely well. At the timeof the examination, Dr. -opined that Pieper's conditions were anxiety anddepression. He had a history of smoking half a pack of cigarettes a day, but wasnegative for alcohol use. Pieper had taken ibuprofen on the day of the exam. In thepast he had taken Vicodin and Flexeril. as well as ibuprofen. Dr. 'found noabnormalities in the cervical spine. He found Pieper to have full range of motion.normal reflexes, and full extension. He was able to arch his back 30 degrees. hadlateral tlexion on the right and left at 30 degrees. and rotation on the right and left at 30degrees. Pieper was able to walk on his heels and toes. Dr. 'further statedthat, aside from evidence of an incident in 2009 during which Pieper injured his neckwhile restraining an inmate. there were no documents suggesting that Pieper receivedany treatment to the cervical and lumbar spine prior to the incident of June 25, 2010.Dr. 'opined within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Pieper'sback is most likely better than it had been. since he had pre-existing neck and backabnormalities that appeared to be better after the surgeries. He stated that there wasdegenerative disease and herniations and the discs lused.Dr. 'further testified on cross--examination that "the fact that the incidentoccurs and there is pre-existing abnormalities radiologlcally. the incident plus the pre-existing abnormalities does not mean it was aggravated. You can't be sure it wasaggravated unless you have an x-ray before. [and] an x-ray after," which we don't havehere. He opined that the surgeries made Pieper more capable of performing his jobthan not.OAL DKT. NO. 12438-12In Dr. - view, Pieper has had degenerative changes throughout hiscervical and lumbar spine that did not have a clinical correlation to the incident inquestion. and he should be able to do his job without difficulty. He lurther opined thatthe June 25. 2010, incident did not cause a total and permanent disability. To thecontrary. he opined that because of the superb result in Piepers medical treatment, hewas now in better condition than he had been in quite some time.FINDINGS OF FACTThe parties submitted a Joint Stipulation of Facts. which I FIND AS FACT:1. On July 16, 2012. the Board considered and denied Pieper's appiicationfor accidental disability benefits, but determined that he qualified for deferredretirement pension benefits.2. On July 16, 2012, the Board determined that Pieper was not totally andpermanently disabled from the performance of Pleper's regular and assigned jobduties.3. On July 16, 2012, the Board found that Pieper was not physically ormentally incapacitated from the performance of his usual or other duties that hisemployer was willing to offer.4. On July 16, 2012, the Board determined that Pieper's reported disabilitywas not the direct result of Pieper's willful negligence. was identifiable as to timeand place. was undesigned and unexpected, and occurred during and as a resultof Pieper's regular and assigned duties.5. On July 16, 2012, the Board determined that there was no evidence in therecord of direct causation of Fieper's reported total and permanent disability10. OAL DKT. NO. TYP 12438-12Based upon consideration of the testimonial and documentary evidencepresented at the hearing, and having had the opportunity to observe the demeanor ofthe witnesses and assess their credibility, I FIND the following additional FACTS:1. At the time of the incident of June 25, 2010, which gave rise to hisapplication for an accidental disability pension, Pieper was employed as a seniorcorrection of?cer for the Juvenile Justice Commission.2. Pieper's main responsibility was to respond to emergencies, includinginmates ?ghting, inmates assaulting staff, and inmates assaulting civilians.3. On June 25, 2010, Pieper responded to an emergency of two inmates?ghting. He was one of the ?rst oflicers to arrive. Pieper held one of the inmatesin a frontal headlock and dropped his weight to the ground to bring the inmatedown, landing on the ground with the inmate on top of him.4. Pieper's diagnosis after this incident was a disc herniation of the lumbarspine at with an associated annular tear of the disc at bulgingannulus at status post-lumbar epidural steroid injections and status post-surgical intervention to the lumbar spine, including lumbar interbody fusion atplacement of two interbody cages at and anterior instrumentation at5. Two spinal-fusion surgeries were conducted, one on the lower back andthe other on the neck. Both surgeries occurred after the incident. The lumbarfusion was performed on March 18, 2011, and the cervical fusion was performedon September 22, 2011.6. A functional capacity evaluation (FCE) was performed, and Pieper'sphysician placed him on a permanent ?fty-pound weight restriction and imposedrestrictions on bending, standing, walking for long periods of time, and otheractivities, which prohibited him from returning to the job of correction officer.11OAL DKT. NO. TYP 12438-127, Prior to the June 25, 2010, incident, Pieper had an injury in 2009 withregard to his neck. That injury was also inflicted during the course of his duty.8. Dr. 'performed an independent medical examination of Pieper onbehalf of respondent on April 12. 2012. Pieper complained of low-back pain thatwent into his right and leit legs causing weakness and tingling in his toes, andalso oi preoperative back and right-leg pain that went down to his heel. Piepertold him that his had gotten somewhat better. with his pain being a fiveon a scale of zero to ten. Pieper had minor oomplaints in regard to his back.9. Pieper had back pain previously, and complained of no pain at theexamination. He did not have spasm. tenderness or swelling.10. Dr. 'observed that Pieper had full range of motion, normalreflexes, and full extension. He was able to arch his back 30 degrees, and hadlateral flexion right and left at 30 degrees, and rotation light and left at 30degrees. Pieper was able to walk on heels and toes, Aside from evidence of anincident in 2009 during which Pieper injured his neck while restraining an inmate,there was no documentation to suggest that Pieper had any treatment to Ihecervical and lumbar spine prior to the incident of June 25, 2010.11. Pieper has had degenerative changes throughout his cervical and lumbarspine that did not have clinical correlation.12. Petitioner is able to do his job without ditficuliy.LEGAL ABGUMENTThe burden of proof in this matter rests with Pieper to establish that he is entitledto an accidental disability retirement. An applicant for retirement benefits mustconclusively establish that he or she meets the statutory requirements to collect saidbenefits. E, Sgueo v. Comfort Control Corg,, 99 g; 588 (1985). To qualify foraccidental disability benefits under the PFRS, an applicant must prove:12OAL DKT. NO. TYP 12438-121. that he is permanently and totally disabled;as "a direct result of a traumatic event that isa. identi?able as to time and place,b. undesigned and unexpected, andc. caused by a circumstance external to themember (not the result of pre-existing disease that isaggravated or accelerated by the work);3. that the traumatic event occurred during and as aresult of the member's regular or assigned duties;4. that the disability was not the result of the member'swillful negligence; and5. that the member is mentally or physicallyincapacitated from performing his usual or any otherduty.[Richardson. supra, 192 at 212-13; see also N.J.S.A.This is a high threshold that culls out all minor injuries, and all cases in which a membercan continue to work in some other capacity.In this matter, the PFRS Board did not dispute that the June 25, 2010, incidentwas identi?able as to time and place, and was undesigned and unexpected. Theundisputed evidence further established that the event occurred during and as a resultof Pieper?s regular and assigned duties. No claim was asserted that Pieper?s disabilitywas the product of his willful negligence. Rather, the issues that divide the parties arewhether Pieper became ?mentally or physically incapacitated from performing his usualor any other duty,? and, if so. whether that permanent and total disability was the ?directresult" of the June 25, 2010, incident.Regarding whether petitioner has become permanently and totally disabled as adirect result of a traumatic event that was caused by a circumstance external to the13- OAL DKT. NO. TYP 12438-12member, Richardson explains, citing Russo v. Teachers? Pension and Annuitv Fund, 62142, 154 (1973), that there are two basic types of ?external events":In writing for the Court, Chief Justice Weintraub focused onthe word accident, which remains in the language of theaccidental death bene?ts provision, N.J.S.A. and recognized that, after the decision of Dwyer and Fattore,the terms accident and traumatic event are interchangeable:would be an apparent novelty, [to have] two concepts ofan accident in a single statute, one for disability retirementand the other in cases of death.? Russo, supra, 62 at152. The Chief Justice explained that:In ordinary parlance, an accident may be foundeither in an unintended external event or in anunanticipated consequence of an intendedexternal event if that consequence isextraordinary or unusual in commonexperience. injury by ordinary work effort orstrain to a diseased heart, althoughunexpected by the individual af?icted, is not anextraordinary or unusual consequence incommon experience. We are satis?ed thatdisability or death in such circumstances is notaccidental within the meaning of a pensionstatute when all that appears is that theemployee was doing his usual work in theusual way.|Richardson, supra, 192 at 201 Under Russo and Cattani v. Board of Trustees PFRS, 69 578, 583 (1976),as re-af?rmed by Richardson, a heart attack is a consequence of an intended external event that is excluded because its occurrence is not an extraordinary or unusualconsequence in common experience. Richardson, supra, 192 N_.i at 201. In aschool custodian with advanced heart disease suffered a heart attack at work. Amedical expert opined that the work effort, although light, caused the heart attack.Rig, 62 at 145. In a ?reman's very strenuous work effort, indragging heavy hoses without adequate manpower to assist him, was also held not tobe an ?accident." Cattani, supra, 69 N.J. at 630. As noted by Chief Justice Weintraubin Russo and endorsed in Richardson, accidental disability is not provided to members14OAL DKT. NO TYP 12438-12based on "[iln]ury by ordinary work effort." . gm, 192 at 201. Here,Pieper was injured while doing his usual work in the usual way. He has not shown thathis alleged total and permanent disability is "a direct result of a traumatic event that[was] caused by a circumstance external to the member."it is necessary for me to assess and weigh the competing expert testimonyoffered at the hearing in order to determine whether petitioner is, as he asserts.permanently and totally disabled from the performance of his regular or assigned duties.Both medical experts proved to be credible. oompetent witnesses. However.respondent's witness, Dr. - presented a more persuasive opinion as to the issueof permanent and total disability and as to the petitioners ability to perform the functionsand duties of his job.Although petitioner seemed credible about his complaints, the overwhelmingmedical testimony of Dr. -was to the contrary. He opined that petitioner wasable to perform his duties since he had a good recovery from his fusions. His opinion ofpetitioner's ability to return to work was further supported by petitioner's ability to walkon his heels and toes without difficulty; his minimal, if any, complaint of pain during theexamination; and his ability to periorm the different flexion tests given to him.As a general rule. "where the medical testimony is in conflict, greater weightshould be accorded to the testimony of the treating physician" as opposed to anevaluating physician who has only met with the employee on one occasion. Bialko l;lBaker Milk 38 Super. 169, 171-72 (App. Div.), certit. denied, 20 535(1956); see Bou'ai v. Bd. of Trs. Pub. Emgs.' Ret, Sys., TYP 10193~99. initial Decision(February 8, 2001), adopted, Ed. of Trustees (March 22. 2001),Daniels v. Pub. Emps.' Ret. Sys., 96N.J.A R.2d (TYP) 292, 297. However, this rule is not immutable. That a physician hasbeen selected and is paid by the Board is "hardly a basis to discount his testimony' infavor of the treating physician. who is presumably paid by the patient. Reiziss v. Bd. ofTrs. Teachers' Pension and Annuig Fund. 91 (TYP) 16, 21. it is further wellsettled that weight to which an expert opinion is entitled can rise no higher than15OAL DKT.NO.TYP1243E-12the facts and reasoning upon which that opinion is predicated."' Johnson v. Salemg, 97 78. S1 (1984) (citation omitted). in this regard. it is within the province ofthe finder of facts to determine the credibility, weight and probative value of the experttestimony. State v. Frost, 242 NJ. Super. 601. 615 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 127 321 (1990); Rubanick V. Vlfitoo Chem. Corp, 242 NJ. Sugr. 36. 48 (App. Div. 1990),modified on other grounds and remanded. 125 mi. 421 (1991). "The testimonial andexperiential weaknesses of the witness, such as (1) his status as a general practitioner.testifying as to a specialty, or (2) the fact that his conclusions are based largely on thesubjective complaints of the patient or on a cursory examination. may be exposed bythe usual methods of cross-examination." Angel v. Rand fines Inc.. 66 L).fipir. 77, 86 (App. Div. 1961). Other factors to consider include whether the expert'sopinion finds support in the records trom other physicians. and the information uponwhich the expert has based his conclusions. And. the premises upon which the expert'sobservations are based, coupled with the expert': ultimate conclusions. may becontradicted by rebuttal experts and other evidence of the opposing party. mgDr. was not petitioner's treating physician, and. therefore, the discussionin does not apply here. Fuithemiore. Dr, 'is not an orthopedic surgeon.Conversely. Dr. - a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, made objective findings.based upon which he concluded that petitioner was capable of resuming his normal jobduties.Accordingly. I found that Dr. reasoning and ultimate conclusionsoutweighed those offered by Dr. The opinion reached by Dr. 'wassupported by the result of his examination. vmich was corroborated by objectivemeasures, including an MRI and x