CLAIM NO. F903774
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED OCTOBER 29, 2010
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by the Honorable Zan Davis, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by the Honorable Melissa Wood, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Reversed.
OPINION AND ORDER
The claimant appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed March 15, 2010. The administrative law judge found that the claimant did not prove he was entitled to additional benefits. After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission reverses the administrative law judge’s opinion. The Full Commission finds that the claimant proved he was entitled to additional medical treatment and temporary partial disability benefits.
Page 2
I. HISTORY
Jeffery Wade Barnett, age 35, testified that he became employed with Twin City Transportation in about October 2008. The claimant testified that he was hired to work as a service technician, which job consisted of duties such as changing oil. The claimant testified that he eventually became a mechanic for the respondent-employer, performing work in “wheels, seals, and bearings.” The claimant testified that his work occasionally required heavy manual labor. The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury to his left shoulder on April 22, 2009. The claimant testified on direct examination:
Q. Tell us how your injury of April 22 that has been stipulated to here today happened in 2009.
A. Me and Andy Burton was pulling out a chunk cover in a big truck. He was on top by the fifth wheel on top of the truck and I was laying on the creeper on the bottom. . . .And we were trying to get this chunk out, you know, and he was prying on the top part of it and I was prying on the bottom part and we was trying to walk it out. And whenever it got close to being out I had told him to stand up, that it looked like it was about to fall, you know. And he said okay, and it just fell. . . .
I was laying on my right side and that bar was coming down to me like it was going to hit me in the face, and just instantly I grabbed at the bar. And whenever it did, it pulled my left arm over this way (demonstrating), you know, dodging it, you know, and it more or less slammed my hand, you know, and my arm on the ground. . . .
Q. Now did you actually get impacted with anything?
A. No, sir. The only thing it did was whenever it fell, like I said, the bar was coming down on me, and I grabbed it to keep it from hitting me in the face and all and it sprung me over, more or less.
Q. Right. But it didn’t actually hit you?
Page 3
A. No, sir.
Q. But is just pushed your arm back in a bad position?
A. Yes, sir. . . .
Dr. William Warren saw the claimant on April 22, 2009: “The patient suffered an axial load injury of left shoulder. The pain began abruptly. . . .Shoulder X-Ray: Negative.” Dr. Warren assessed “Shoulder strain” and assigned restrictions, “Including no over shoulder lifting or reaching; 20 pound limitation in lifting, pushing and pulling; no ground level lifting. No CMV driving.” Dr. Warren also indicated that the claimant “Must wear sling.” The claimant began physical therapy on April 23, 2009.
An MRI of the claimant’s left shoulder was taken on April 29, 2009, with Dr. David Harshfield giving the following impression:
1. Narrowing of the lateral and medial columns of the coracoacromial arch with impingement changes on the underlying cuff.
2. Partial thickness insertional and interstitial tear involving the anterior margin of the supraspinatus tendon without large full defect, musculotendinous retraction or cuff atrophy.
3. Adhesive capsulitis localized to the anterior capsule.
4. MR arthrogram would be of benefit to assess the severity of the suspected SLAP lesion, and would have the potential additional benefit of disrupting the adhesive capsulitis involving the axillary recess.
The claimant followed up with Dr. Warren on April 29, 2009: “He feels the pattern of symptoms is stable. Patient has been working within the duty restrictions. Patient has had physical therapy.” Dr. Warren kept the claimant’s
Page 4
work restrictions in place, and the claimant continued treating with a physical therapist.
Dr. Harshfield performed a CT arthrogram of the claimant’s left shoulder with injection therapy on May 7, 2009, and gave the following impression:
1. CT arthrogram resulted in disruption of the adhesive capsulitis involving the anterioinferior joint space, and confirmed the absence of a full-thickness rotator cuff tear.
2. No evidence of high-grade SLAP lesion (superior labral anterior to posterior tear), labral detachment or indirect evidence of macro instability.
3. After an uneventful observation period, the patient was discharged from the department without complication.
The claimant testified that he had returned to light duty for the respondent-employer, which work included sweeping, picking up trash, and getting oil filters. Later, “They told me they didn’t need me no more and that I needed to go talk to the woman up there that did my checks and all that kind of stuff, and she put me on full benefits from that point on.”
The claimant followed up with Dr. Warren on May 18, 2009: “He feels the pattern of symptoms is no better. Patient has not been working because no light duty available. . . . ASSESSMENT: 1. Shoulder strain. . . . 2. Left shoulder partial tendon tear.” Dr. Warren kept work restrictions in place and planned referral to an orthopedic surgeon.
Dr. Stephen A. Hudson, an orthopedic surgeon, examined the claimant on May 22, 2009:
Mr. Barnett is a 33 year old male who worked as a service tech. He injured his left shoulder at work on 4/22/09. He reports that he was
Page 5
taking a rear end out of a truck when it fell and jerked his left arm. He had immediate pain in his left shoulder. . . .
X-rays taken today, AP and scapular Y of the left shoulder, show no fracture, dislocation, or significant osseous abnormality.
MRI of the left shoulder, dated 4/29/09, shows what appears to be some partial thickness tearing of the supraspinatus with no evidence of a full thickness tear. This appears to be less than 30% of the thickness. No other intraarticular damage is seen.
A CT arthrogram was then done on 5/7/09 which shows some tightening of the anteroinferior capsule, with some adhesive capsulitis. There was no evidence of a full thickness rotator cuff tear and no evidence of a SLAP tear or labral detachment. . . .
I had a discussion with the patient and his case manager today that I think he has pain out of proportion to the amount of apparent injury at this point, which raises the concern of RSD. He does have some slight skin color changes in this arm and hand. I do not see anything on his MRI or CT scans that need operative intervention or for that matter would cause this much pain in his shoulder, so I think we should give this some more time to settle down. I think we should continue with physical therapy to try to keep this moving and keep it from getting too stiff. I will also have him do some desensitization if this is some early RSD and possibly a TENS unit. I will give him a prescription for Neurontin to help with this as well and a prescription for Ultram. His asking about more Percocet or Oxycodone, and I do not think I would give him a narcotic at thisPage 6
point. We will try Ultram to try to control his pain and add the Neurontin if there is a nerve component to this. I will see him back in three to four weeks and see how he is doing with this. Until then, I will keep him on light work duty with no use of the left arm.
Dr. Hudson assessed “Left shoulder pain, possibly early reflex sympathetic dystrophy.”
Dr. Kenneth C. Fortgang, a radiologist, provided an “Age Of Injury Analysis” on May 29, 2009:
The following consultative report is “an aging request” on the above patient based upon the initial interpretation provided. It is not meant to be utilized or interpreted for treatment purposes of the above patient. . . .
HISTORY: One week after an injury, the patient had an MRI of the left shoulder at Northside Open MRI, in Little Rock, Arkansas. The primary reader described narrowing of the lateral and medial columns of the coracoacromial arch with impingement. Partial-thickness insertional and interstitial tear involving the anterior margin of the supraspinatus tendon without large full defect. Adhesive capsulitis is noted. MR arthrogram was suggested to exclude the severity of a suspected SLAP lesion.
FINDINGS:
I concur with the findings of supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendinosis and insertional interstitial tear. These are findings more typically associated with wear-and-tear, particularly in the face of this patient’s acromioclavicular changes. There is encroachment, which is a known etiology for these findings.
Association with recent injury is unlikely.
Adhesive capsulitis, which is suspected, and SLAP tear, which is equivocally suspected, are in general not specifically associated with recent injury. With respect to the SLAP tear, since this is not a definitive finding, while I suspect that this would not be an acute abnormality, I am not specifically addressing the finding which is not definitively present.
Page 7
CONCLUSION:
Therefore, in conclusion, there are no specific findings associated with the recent injury. The supraspinatus and infraspinatus abnormality and the acromioclavicular abnormalities are not related with recent injury. The SLAP tear is not definitive and not specifically assessed. Adhesive capsulitis is unlikely to be related with immediate recent injury.
The claimant followed up with Dr. Hudson on June 4, 2009:
He reports his shoulder is doing somewhat better. He has been doing the physical therapy and taking Ultram and Neurontin. He reports that it is feeling better but is still painful with activity and use of the arm, but his stiffness is improving. . . .
I had a discussion with the patient’s case manager today that I think he is improving. I think we just need to continue the physical therapy and see if this will continue to improve. I think he needs to continue light work duty of no overhead, no heavy activity with the left arm while is doing physical therapy. . . .
I have been asked to comment on the findings on his MRI of the left shoulder. He has been given a report by his case manager from a radiologist who reviewed his MRI, who states that his opinion is that the partial tearing in infraspinatus and supraspinatus on the MRI are not related to his recent injury. It is my opinion, while it is certainly true that there can be partial-thickness tearing and tendinosis of the rotator cuff tendons on MRI from the more chronic wear and tear or degenerative processes, we also often see patients who had some tendinitis or tendinosis of the tendon who then have an injury which causes a partial tear of a previously weaknened tendon, so the injury certainly contributes to the patient becoming symptomatic from the shoulder so I think it is impossible to say that this patient did not have an injury to his shoulder merely because he has some findings on his MRI which can occasionally occur through gradual degenerative wear and tear. Certainly the patient by his report was doing well with the shoulder prior to this injury and now is having great difficulty using the arm and there are findings on the MRI consistent with an injury. I think it is impossible to say that there is no relation to the patient’s injury. His described mechanism of injury is consistent with aggravation of his rotator cuff, so respectfully disagree with thePage 8
finding on this radiologist that I do not think these findings on the MRI rule out any acute injury to the shoulder.
Dr. Hudson assessed “Improving left shoulder pain and rotator cuff tendinosis.”
HUB Enterprises, Inc., an investigation firm, began surveillance of the claimant on or about June 11, 2009. The claimant was observed performing such activities as putting gasoline into a vehicle, opening and closing a truck door with his left arm, holding a cell phone with his left arm, and driving through fast-food restaurants. The surveillance footage showed no apparent difficulties involving the claimant’s left arm or shoulder. On June 23, 2009, the claimant was observed using both arms to assist his brother in lifting and carrying large furniture items from the back of a truck. The claimant showed no physical problems involving his left arm or shoulder. Nor did the video evidence indicate that the claimant sustained a new injury while lifting furniture on June 23, 2009, or on any other date of the recorded surveillance. The claimant testified on cross-examination that he and his brother lifted “a little entertainment center.” The claimant testified that the entertainment center weighed about 100 pounds and was not difficult for two people to lift.
The claimant followed up with Dr. Hudson on June 24, 2009:
He reports that he does not feel like he is doing any better. He is going to physical therapy and reports that his motion is improved, but he is still having significant pain in the shoulder and difficulty using it, difficulty lifting his arm over his head. He feels like he has weakness in the arm. He still has a “catch” in his arm when he attempts to raise it over his head. . . .
Page 9
I had a lengthy discussion with the patient and his case manager today and related that I think clearly he is not improving with the physical therapy and continues to have pain and problems. He has what appears to be a partial thickness tear on his MRI; however, his clinical exam is more consistent with a full thickness tear. I think that he would benefit from an arthroscopy of the shoulder to evaluate his rotator cuff and perform a possible rotator cuff repair if it is significantly torn more than 50% thickness. I would also do a subacromial decompression, possibly an anterior capsular release, if he still has significant stiffness on exam under anesthesia. I discussed the risks and benefits with him today, especially the risk that this could worsen; some RSD, if that is what is causing him to have pain out of proportion, but I think he clearly is having more pain than would be expected from this and would benefit from arthroscopic intervention. . . .
Dr. Hudson assessed “Partial thickness tear, supraspinatus, left shoulder, possible adhesive capsulitis.” Dr. Hudson signed a Work Status Report on June 24, 2009, indicating that the claimant could return to light duty with the restriction, “no use of left arm.”
The claimant testified that the respondents paid benefits until July 24, 2009: “Karen called me in and told me that they was terminating my benefits because I had been, got caught on surveillance moving furniture. . . .The medical, everything ended, and everything ended from that point on.” The claimant testified that, about one month later, he began driving a delivery route one day a week, at a pay rate of $120.00 per week. The claimant applied for employment with SOS Family Of Companies, a staffing agency, on October 1, 2009. The claimant applied for employment with Career Staffing Services on October 5, 2009.
Page 10
A pre-hearing order was filed on October 27, 2009. The claimant contended that he was entitled to “additional medical care and treatment, including surgery recommended by the authorized treating physician, Dr. Hudson.” The claimant contended that he was entitled to “temporary total disability benefits from the date last paid to a date yet to be determined.”
The respondents contended that “while this claim was initially accepted as compensable, surveillance done on or about June 8, 2009, indicates that the claimant was clearly acting outside the scope of any limitations and restrictions that were assigned to him by his treating physician. It is respondents’ position that any need for medical treatment and his off work status subsequent to that surveillance is associated with an independent intervening incident and not the claimant’s original compensable injury. The respondents contend the claimant has a child support obligation of $542.00 for fee arrearages that must be taken into consideration in the event he is found entitled to additional indemnity benefits.”
The parties agreed to litigate the following issues:
1. The claimant’s entitlement to additional medical benefits and temporary total disability benefits.
2. Controversion and attorney’s fees.
Dr. Jason G. Stewart, an orthopaedic surgeon, corresponded with counsel for the respondents on December 9, 2009:
I have reviewed the records provided to me on Jeffrey Barnett along with a DVD of surveillance. It has been recommended by Dr. Steve Hudson to perform shoulder arthroscopy with subacromial decompression and possible anterior
Page 11
capsule release. I was asked to give my opinion on whether the recommendations were based on the claimant’s work related injury or possibly his postinjury activities. From what I have reviewed, it is consistent that the work related injury could have contributed to the type of problem that he has prior to the activities that he was performing on the surveillance tape. It is also possible that the activities that I viewed on the surveillance tape could have also caused an injury to the shoulder. Although I do not see him sustain an injury during the surveillance, I do see evidence of him lifting some type of furniture that requires the assistance of another man on the other end of the piece of furniture, and it does appear to be a heavy piece of furniture that was in the bed of a pickup truck. He is seen carrying it in using both upper extremities to lift this object and carry it into a house.
The description that I have of the original injury is of a transmission hitting his shoulder. The symptoms that I see that he is being treated for by Dr. Hudson involve impingement syndrome, specifically performing a subacromial decompression. I am not sure that impingement syndrome could be induced by something falling on his shoulder, and would expect a direct impact to the shoulder, such as the one he had, would cause some form of contusion of the shoulder and that the healing period should have passed by now. I agree with the MRI interpretation that confirms that most of these diagnoses are chronic in nature. I cannot apply any type of impairment rating to him without being able to observe objective findings myself.
A hearing was held on December 15, 2009. At that time, the claimant essentially contended that he was entitled to temporary partial disability benefits. The claimant testified that he wanted to undergo surgery recommended by Dr. Hudson. The claimant testified that he had not applied for unemployment benefits, because “I’m not physically able to work.”
An administrative law judge filed an opinion on March 15, 2010. The administrative law judge found that the claimant did not prove he was entitled to
Page 12
additional medical treatment or surgery recommended by Dr. Hudson. The administrative law judge found that the claimant did not prove he was entitled to additional temporary disability benefits. The claimant appeals to the Full Commission.
II. ADJUDICATION
A. Medical Treatment
The employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such medical treatment as may be reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the employee. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a) (Repl. 2002). The employee has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that requested medical treatment is reasonably necessary Fayetteville School Dist. v. Kunzelman, 93 Ark. App. 160, 217 S.W.2d 149 (2005). What constitutes reasonably necessary medical treatment is a question of fact for the Commission. Dalton v. Allen Eng’g Co., 66 Ark. App. 201, 989 S.W.2d 543 (1999).
An administrative law judge found in the present matter, “4. Claimant has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that his need for additional medical treatment, including the surgery recommended by Dr. Hudson, is reasonable and necessary and causally related to his compensable work-related injury of April 22, 2009.” The Full Commission reverses this finding.
The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury to his left shoulder on April 22, 2009. The claimant described an accident in which
Page 13
his left arm and shoulder were pulled back in an awkward position. Dr. Warren diagnosed the claimant as having an “axial load injury” of the left shoulder and a shoulder strain. An MRI of the claimant’s left shoulder on April 29, 2009 showed, among other things, a partial thickness tear of the supraspinatus tendon. There is no evidence of record suggesting that the post-accident MRI findings were related to a pre-existing shoulder condition. The claimant received conservative treatment which included physical therapy and at least one injection. Dr. Warren diagnosed shoulder strain and left shoulder partial tendon tear on May 18, 2009. Dr. Hudson subsequently began treating the claimant and noted that an MRI showed at least partial tearing of the supraspinatus tendon. Dr. Hudson reported on June 24, 2009, “He has what appears to be a partial thickness tear on his MRI; however, his clinical exam is more consistent with a full thickness tear.” Dr. Hudson recommended an arthroscopy and decompression of the shoulder.
The Full Commission recognizes the opinion of Dr. Fortgang, a radiologist, who reviewed the claimant’s diagnostic testing and opined that there were “no specific findings associated with” the claimant’s stipulated compensable injury. Dr. Fortgang stated that the claimant’s diagnostic findings were “more typically associated with wear-and-tear, particularly in the face of this patient’s acromioclavicular changes.” We also recognize Dr. Stewart’s opinion that the MRI findings and diagnoses were “chronic in nature” rather than related to the compensable injury. The Commission has the authority to accept or reject medical opinion and the authority to determine its medical soundness and
Page 14
probative force. Green Bay Packaging v. Bartlett, 67 Ark. App. 332, 999 S.W.2d 692 (1999). The Commission’s authority to resolve conflicting evidence also extends to medical testimony Maverick Transp. v. Buzzard, 69 Ark. App. 128, 10 S.W.3d 467 (2000).
In the present matter, the Full Commission finds that the medical opinion of Dr. Hudson, the treating orthopedic surgeon, is entitled to significant evidentiary weight. Dr. Hudson opined on June 4, 2009 that the findings on the MRI of the claimant’s left shoulder were consistent with an injury. Dr. Hudson did not agree with Dr. Fortgang’s “Age Of Injury Analysis” or conclusion that the MRI findings were related to “wear and tear.” Nor is there any evidence before the Commission demonstrating that the claimant’s need for additional medical treatment was in any way causally related to the activities shown in the video surveillance. The record before us does not show that the claimant sustained a new injury or aggravated his physical condition while lifting a piece of furniture from a truck on June 23, 2009. The record does not support Dr. Stewart’s conclusion on December 9, 2009 that the claimant’s diagnoses were “chronic in nature.” If an injury is compensable, then every natural consequence of that injury is also compensable. Hubley v. Best Western Governor’s Inn, 52 Ark. App. 226, 916 S.W.2d 143 (1996). The Full Commission finds that the instant claimant proved Dr. Hudson’s treatment recommendations were reasonably necessary in connection with the stipulated compensable injury sustained by the claimant. Dr. Hudson’s treatment recommendations were related to a natural
Page 15
consequence of the compensable injury, not to an independent intervening cause.
B. Temporary Disability
Temporary total disability is that period within the healing period in which the employee suffers a total incapacity to earn wages, whereas temporary partial disability is that period within the healing period in which the employee suffers only a decrease in the capacity to earn the wages he was receiving at the time of the injury. Ark. State Hwy. Dept. v. Breshears, 272 Ark. 244, 613 S.W.2d 392 (1981). “Healing period” means “that period for healing of an injury resulting from an accident.” Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(12) (Repl. 2002). The healing period continues until the employee is as far restored as the permanent character of his injury will permit, and if the underlying condition causing the disability has become stable and if nothing in the way of treatment will improve that condition, the healing period has ended. Harvest Foods v. Washam, 52 Ark. App. 72, 914 S.W.2d 776 (1996).
An administrative law judge found in the present matter, “5. Claimant has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to additional temporary partial disability benefits.” The Full Commission does not affirm this finding. The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury to his left shoulder on April 22, 2009. Dr. Warren assessed “Shoulder strain” and assigned work restrictions of no over-shoulder lifting; no lifting, pushing, or pulling over 20 pounds; and no ground-level lifting. An MRI on April 29, 2009 showed a
Page 16
partial-thickness tear in the supraspinatus tendon. Dr. Warren noted on April 29, 2009 that the claimant had returned to restricted work. Dr. Warren kept the work restrictions in place. The claimant’s testimony indicated that the respondents provided restricted work until approximately May 18, 2009, and that the claimant began receiving temporary disability benefits. Dr. Warren noted on May 18, 2009 that the claimant was suffering from a left shoulder partial-tendon tear. The claimant began treating with Dr. Hudson on May 22, 2009.
Dr. Hudson released the claimant to return to work on June 24, 2009, with the restriction, “no use of left arm.” The record does not show that the claimant returned to restricted work at that time. The claimant testified that he received temporary disability benefits until July 24, 2009, and that the cessation of benefits was related to the surveillance showing the claimant lifting furniture with his brother. The video surveillance indeed demonstrated that the claimant had some physical ability and was not totally incapacitated from earning wages. Nevertheless, the record does not show that the claimant was physically able to return to manual labor for the respondent-employer. Dr. Hudson’s examinations on June 4, 2009 and June 24, 2009 indicated that the claimant remained within a healing period for his compensable injury. Dr. Hudson specifically opined on June 24, 2009 that the claimant was suffering from a partial-thickness tear in the shoulder and would require surgery. The Full Commission finds that the claimant remained within a healing period for his compensable injury, and that the claimant suffered a decreased capacity to earn the wages he was receiving at
Page 17
the time of the injury. We therefore find that the claimant proved he was entitled to temporary partial disability benefits beginning July 24, 2009 until a date yet to be determined.
Based on our de novo review of the entire record, the Full Commission finds that the claimant proved he was entitled to additional medical treatment as recommended by Dr. Hudson. The claimant proved Dr. Hudson’s treatment recommendations were reasonably necessary in connection with the compensable injury. The claimant proved he was entitled to temporary partial disability benefits beginning July 24, 2009 until a date yet to be determined. The claimant proved he was entitled to temporary partial disability benefits at the rate of $287.92 per week. The administrative law judge’s findings are reversed. The claimant’s attorney is entitled to fees for legal services in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-715(Repl. 2002). For prevailing on appeal to the Full Commission, the claimant’s attorney is entitled to an additional fee of five hundred dollars ($500), pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-715(b) (Repl. 2002).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
A. WATSON BELL, Chairman
PHILIP A. HOOD, Commissioner
Commissioner McKinney dissents.
KAREN H. McKINNEY, COMMISSIONER
DISSENTING OPINION
Page 18
I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion reversing the decision of the Administrative Law Judge. Based upon my denovo review, without giving the benefit of the doubt to either party, I find that the claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to additional medical treatment or temporary partial disability benefits.
Contrary to the majority’s finding that “[t]here is no evidence of record suggesting that the post-accident MRI findings were related to a pre-existing shoulder condition” both Dr. Fortgang and Dr. Stewart opined that the claimants MRI findings were pre-existing and chronic in nature. While claimant’s admittedly compensable shoulder injury may have resulted in shoulder pain, the record is equivalent with regard to whether the injury actually resulted in the MRI findings. Moreover, despite claimant’s compensable injury, surgery for this pre-existing condition was not recommended until after the claimant engaged in the unreasonable activity of moving furniture . It was not until after the claimant participated in this activity that was outside of the limitations placed upon him by his
Page 19
treating physician that surgery was first recommended. Accordingly, I cannot find that the recommended treatment is causally related to his compensable injury. Therefore, I find that the claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the recommended surgery is reasonable and necessary in connection with the claimant’s compensable injury.
I further find that the claimant has failed to prove that he is entitled to temporary partial disability benefits. The claimant is clearly capable of performing more work than he lets on. Claimant only drives one day a week for his current employer, not because of any physical limitation, but because more work is simply not available. Claimant even admitted that he could and would work more for his current employer if more work were available. Furthermore, the claimant has held himself out to prospective employers as fully capable of working full time, day or night, performing heavy duty labor. Thus, any perceived temporary partial disability on the part of the claimant, is just that — perceived. The claimant is not temporarily partially disabled as a result of his compensable injury, but due to other economic reasons which
Page 20
have no bearing on his workers’ compensation claim. Therefore, I find that the claimant has is not entitled to temporary disability benefits.
Page 1