A flight attendant injured her shoulder while undergoing physical therapy for a work-related wrist injury, and an appeals court in New Jersey ruled that her treatment did not cause her second injury.

Priscilla Robinson worked for United Airlines and suffered a work-related wrist fracture. On the first day of physical therapy her therapist had her lift a bar to eye level multiple times. She said she did not feel well during the experience but did not complain of shoulder pain at the time, though when she got home she felt pain. She saw her doctor the next day and got an MRI which showed a rotator cuff tear. She filed a claim petition saying that the physical therapy for her wrist caused or aggravated the rotator cuff tear in her shoulder.

Her therapist brought her notes to court which showed that all Robinson did on that day was stretching exercises. The notes said she never complained of shoulder pain during the session and though Robinson returned two days later with shoulder pain the therapist modified the activities and she did not complain of pain. She went back to PT three days later on June 20, 2016 and did several exercises but only with her right hand.

Dr. Craig Rosen saw her on January 11, 2018 and recommended arthroscopic surgery to repair the tear, he could not say whether it was an old or new tear but did not feel it was a “longstanding chronic tear”. He said a movement like lifting a bar or a swimming motion could have caused it. Another surgeon, Dr. Kenneth Levitsky, said a forceful twisting or overhead extension could cause such a tear but none of the exercises she did on the first day of therapy would cause such a tear since they were not forceful enough and did not fit the typical mechanism of injury. He thought the tear was preexisting, as he noted she had degenerative changes pre-dating her PT.

The Judge of Compensation found in favor of United Airlines and said she did not carry the burden of proof that her rotator cuff tear was caused or exacerbated by her physical therapy for the wrist. He found Dr. Levitsky’s testimony to be more persuasive than Dr. Rosen’s. She argued that the burden of proof should have been on the employer to show that her accident was caused by a prior and personal condition, but the Appellate Division denied her claim because they said the dispute was whether any event had occurred at work that caused or aggravated her original injury. So, the burden of proof does not shift to her employer and she did not sustain her original burden of proof.

Read the full case or read more here.