CLAIM NO. F214259
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED JUNE 9, 2005
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by HONORABLE GARY DAVIS, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by HONORABLE RANDY MURPHY, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Reversed.
OPINION AND ORDER
This claim is before the Commission on remand from the Court of Appeals. In an Opinion delivered February 23, 2005, the Arkansas Court of Appeals held that the claimant failed to establish causation. Accordingly, we find that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge must be reversed. Based upon our de novo review of the entire record, we find that the claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that surgery for claimant’s isthmic spondylolisthesis and spina bifida occulta is reasonably necessary medical treatment in connection with claimant’s compensable injury.
Claimant sustained an admittedly compensable injury on October 9, 2001, when he was lifting cam shafts onto a rack when he felt “this sharp, paralyzing pain” in his lower back which caused the claimant to drop to his knees. The claimant completed an accident report and was sent to the Russellville Family Clinic. Dr. Ken Turner diagnosed the claimant with a lumbar spine strain, and released the claimant to light duty. The claimant was subsequently referred to Dr. Scott Schlesinger, who examined the claimant on December 10, 2001. Dr. Schlesinger reviewed the claimant’s MRI and diagnosed the claimant as having low back pain secondary to spondylosisthesis.
Upon referral from Dr. Schlesinger, Dr. Marc Valley administered a series of epidural steroid injections beginning in January of 2002. In his report dated January 18, 2002, Dr. Valley stated:
The patient states that on October 9, 2001, he was lifting a heavy weight at work and hurt his back. Evaluation including MRI showed diffuse disc bulging and canal stenosis at L5-S1, and diffuse disc bulging at L5-S1. The patient has been informed by me, that his canal stenosis and degenerative changes were almost certainly there prior to this injury. I have told him that I am unclear whether or not this is exacerbation of an existing complaint or a continuation of a long term problem. I do not have his medical records, prior to this injury, however, he states categorically that he has never had a hospital or physician visit for low back pain prior to this injury. If this is true this is within reasonable degree of medical certainty consistent with an acute exacerbation of a chronic asymptomatic condition.
After completing the series of three injections, Dr. Valley noted on April 12, 2002, that the claimant reported approximately 75% improvement. Dr. Valley further noted that the claimant had an increase in his range of motion and that the claimant wanted to return to full duty work.
The claimant did not seek any additional medical treatment until August 2, 2002, when he went on his own to a chiropractor. On September 4, 2002, claimant was evaluated by Dr. Wayne Bruffett an orthopedic surgeon. After conducting a physical examination of the claimant and reviewing claimant’s x-rays and MRI, Dr. Bruffett explained to the claimant that his pain is “primarily from the disc degeneration at L5-S1 from the instability imparted by the spondylolisthesis.” Dr. Bruffett performed a decompression at L5-S1 with posterior fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion at L5-S1 on October 1, 2002. It is this surgery that is at issue between the parties.
As noted by the Court of Appeals, the record reflects that the claimant had received treatment for and missed work because of his back prior to sustaining his compensable injury. Drs. Bruffett and Valley were never provided this medical history. Accordingly, their opinions as to causation are based upon misinformation. Therefore, their opinions are not entitled to any weight.
The claimant suffered from back pain prior to his compensable injury. The surgery in question was intended to address the pain resulting from the claimant’s pre-existing spondylosisthesis. Based on these facts, and in accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeals, we find that the claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the surgery performed by Dr. Bruffett was reasonably necessary in connection with his compensable injury.
The decision of the Administrative Law Judge is hereby reversed and this claim for benefits denied and dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________ OLAN W. REEVES, Chairman
___________________________________ KAREN H. McKINNEY, Commissioner
Commissioner Turner dissents.