BLACK v. CACHE VALLEY ELECTRIC CO., 1994 AWCC 73

CLAIM NO. E113495

ROBERT E. BLACK, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. CACHE VALLEY ELECTRIC CO., EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT and ROYAL INS. CO., CARRIER, RESPONDENT

Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED JULY 28, 1994

Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.

Claimant represented by ROBERT A. RUSSELL, JR., Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Respondent represented by MICHAEL J. EMERSON, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Reversed.

[1] OPINION AND ORDER
[2] This matter comes on for review by the Full Commission from the decision of an Administrative Law Judge filed on December 1, 1993 in which the Administrative Law Judge found that claimant has proven by a preponderance of the credible evidence that claimant is entitled to a change of physician from Dr. Canale to Drs. Boyd and Blackburn.

[3] After carefully conducting a de novo review of the entire record, we find that claimant had previously petitioned the Commission for a change of physician to Dr. D.J. Canale, that request was granted by this Commission and it was this claimant’s one-time only change of physician pursuant to A.C.A. § 11-9-514. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the Administrative Law Judge.

Arkansas Code Ann. § 11-9-4514 (a)(1) provides: If the employee selects a physician, the Commission shall not authorize a change of physician unless the employee first establishes to the satisfaction of the Commission that there is a compelling reason or circumstance justifying the change.

[4] Subsection 2 of the aforementioned statute also states that, “If the employer selects a physician, the claimant may petition the Commission one (1) time only for a change of physician. . .” [5] Based upon a review of the evidence, it is clear that claimant has petitioned for his one-time only change of physician which was granted by the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission. [6] Claimant was involved in an admittedly compensable accident on July 15 or 17, 1991. Claimant has seen numerous physicians including a general practitioner, five neurosurgeons and at least two orthopedic surgeons. Claimant has seen the majority of these physicians through referrals. However, claimant did file a one-time only change of physician in order to see Dr. Canale. Claimant, on April 7, 1992, wrote Cathy Meyer of Royal Insurance with regard to his change of physician. In this letter, claimant stated, “The doctor I choose is Dr. D.J. Canale. I would like to have him see me specifically for my hands, back, and legs.” This was claimant’s request for his one-time only change of physician. Furthermore, on April 15, 1992, Royal Insurance responded to claimant’s request. At the bottom of this letter the following appeared:

THIS LETTER WILL STAND AS MY OFFICIAL NOTICE TO THE INSURANCE CARRIER AND THE ARKANSAS WCC THAT DR. D. J. (DEE) CANALE IS MY OFFICIAL CHOICE OF PHYSICIANS AS OUTLINE ABOVE.

[7] This was signed by claimant on May 18, 1992. Furthermore, the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission wrote to claimant and Royal Insurance on June 12, 1992. In the aforementioned correspondence, it states:

A change of physician has been approved by the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission for Robert Black to Dr. D.J. Canale. . . This approval of a change of physician represents claimant’s one-time only change of physician pursuant to Section 11-9-514 (2) of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act.

[8] The Administrative Law Judge’s opinion totally ignored and disregarded the process this Commission has put in place to expedite change of physician requests. Allowing such an order to stand could not only undermine this entire process, it could also cause the parties affected to refuse to participate. [9] Claimant has already had his one-time only change of physician. The correspondence clearly indicates that all parties were of the opinion that claimant had petitioned to see Dr. D.J. Canale. Simply because claimant was not satisfied with Dr. Canale’s report does not entitle him to another change of physician. [10] It is undisputed that claimant was not please with Dr. Canale’s office report. In fact, it appears that claimant expressed his dislike of Dr. Canale’s report and stormed out of Dr. Canale’s office. Dr. Canale was the fourth
neurosurgeon to evaluate claimant. [11] Dr. Canale was not the only physician that was unable to find anything significantly wrong with claimant or to be suspicious of claimant’s complaints. Several physicians had expressed their doubts as to claimant’s complaints. [12] Furthermore, claimant has offered insufficient evidence of a compelling reason or circumstances for yet another change of physician. Claimant has been seen by at least one general practitioner, two orthopedic surgeons, and five neurosurgeons. Claimant has undergone a plethora of sophisticated medical tests including but not limited to a cervical MRI, lumbar MRI, myelogram, CT scan, x-rays and nerve conduction studies. Minimal evidence of any physical acute injury or pathology has been determined from the aforementioned tests. Additionally, no physician has recommended any additional surgery. [13] For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the Administrative Law Judge erred in granting claimant yet another change of physician. Claimant has petitioned and received his one-time only change of physician. Claimant has failed to offer a compelling reason for another change of physician. Simply because he does not like Dr. Canale or the report is not sufficient. [14] We find that claimant’s claim for yet another change of physician should be denied and dismissed. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the Administrative Law Judge. [15] IT IS SO ORDERED.

JAMES W. DANIEL, Chairman ALLYN C. TATUM, Commissioner

[16] Commissioner Humphrey dissents.