CLAIM NO. E104610
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED JUNE 24, 1999
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by DENVER L. THORNTON, Attorney at Law, El Dorado, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by BETTY J. DEMORY, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Reversed
[1] OPINION AND ORDER[2] The respondent appeals a decision of the Administrative Law Judge filed on November 10, 1998, finding that claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the chiropractic treatment rendered to claimant by Dr. Walter P. Creel is reasonable and necessary medical treatment related to claimant’s compensable injury. Based upon our de novo review of the entire record, we find that claimant has failed to meet his burden of proof. Therefore, we find that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge must be reversed. [3] At the hearing held on August 25, 1998, claimant contended that he is entitled to a continuation of pharmacy and physician’s benefits or treatment to include that of Dr. Creel, a chiropractor. Conversely, respondent contended that claimant has received all appropriate medical treatment to which he is entitled, and that the continued weekly visits to Dr. Creel is not reasonable and necessary. After reviewing the evidence impartially, without giving the benefit of the doubt to either party, we agree with respondent. [4] This claim arose following a compensable injury to claimant’s lower back on January 12, 1991. This claim has been the subject of two prior hearings concerning claimant’s entitlement to additional temporary total disability benefits, a change of treating physician, and permanent disability. The transcripts and Opinions resulting from the prior hearings were made part of the record by reference. [5] At the present hearing, claimant testified that he has sought chiropractic manipulations from Dr. Creel on at least a weekly basis, with the exception of a six-month period, ever since sustaining the injury in January of 1991. The last medical doctor to examine the claimant was Dr. Jim Moore who saw the claimant in 1995. Claimant presently takes prescription medication for his heart condition, but has not received prescription medication for his lower back condition in a number of years. [6] The record reflects that Dr. Creel provides chiropractic treatment for both claimant’s cervical and lumbar complaints. However, claimant’s cervical complaints pre-existed his compensable injury of January 12, 1991. Furthermore, the record reflects that claimant sought chiropractic manipulations from Dr. Creel for both cervical and lumbar complaints even before claimant sustained the sprain injury to his lower back on January 12, 1991. [7] Employers must promptly provide medical services which are reasonably necessary for treatment of compensable injuries. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a) (Repl. 1996). However, injured employees have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the medical treatment is reasonably necessary for the treatment of the compensable injury. Norma Beatty v. Ben Pearson, Inc., Full Compensation Commission Opinion filed February 17, 1989 (D612291). When assessing whether medical treatment is reasonably necessary for the treatment of a compensable injury, we must analyze both the proposed procedure and the condition it is sought to remedy.Deborah Jones v. Seba, Inc., Full Commission Opinion Dec. 13, 1989 (D512553). Also, the respondent is only responsible for medical services which are causally related to the compensable injury. [8] In the present claim, we find that claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that additional chiropractic treatments are reasonable and necessary medical treatment related to claimant’s compensable injury. The medical records indicate that claimant sustained a sprain or strain type injury to his lower back on January 12, 1991. The record reflects that Dr. Creel may have billed respondent for treatment of claimant’s cervical complaints; however, we find that claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that such treatment is reasonable and necessary medical treatment related to claimant’s compensable low-back injury. At no time has there ever been a finding that claimant sustained an injury to his cervical spine on January 12, 1991. Insofar as the decision of the Administrative Law Judge implies that respondent is responsible for all of Dr. Creel’s outstanding balance after the application of Rule 30, we find that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge must be reversed. Our review of Dr. Creel’s itemized statement fails to disclose whether the applications of chiropractic treatments were rendered to claimant’s cervical or lumbar spine. However, Dr. Creel’s correspondence to both claimant’s attorney and respondents’ attorney indicates that he has been rendering chiropractic treatment to both claimant’s cervical and lumbar areas. Therefore, we find that respondent is not responsible for any chiropractic treatment related to claimant’s cervical complaints. [9] Moreover, we find that claimant has failed to prove that the continued chiropractic treatment rendered to claimant for his lumbar injury is reasonable and necessary treatment for claimant’s compensable injury. Our review of the record persuades us to find that continued indefinite chiropractic treatment is not reasonable and necessary treatment for claimant’s compensable injury. While the chiropractic manipulations have offered claimant some benefit in the past, the evidence reveals that the benefit has only been temporary. Accordingly, the ongoing treatments have minimal value. There is no evidence that claimant has received any type of permanent relief from the treatment rendered by Dr. Creel. This is not to say, however, that claimant is not entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment related to his compensable injury. The record reflects that respondent has even offered claimant alternative orthopedic treatment from an orthopedic specialist. [10] The chiropractic treatment rendered to claimant over the past eight years has failed to provide any appreciable permanent relief for the claimant. By claimant’s own admission, he must return to Dr. Creel on a weekly basis, if not more often. The chiropractic treatment did not benefit claimant in the form of self-education of adequate stretching for his documented muscle spasms. (See Dr. Moore’s independent medical evaluation from 1995). Chiropractic treatment only resulted in further need of treatment and has failed to provide any form of lasting relief. The remedy sought, relief of claimant’s ongoing pain, was not accomplished through the chiropractic treatment as evidenced by claimant’s frequent chiropractic visits. Therefore, we find that claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the chiropractic treatment in question was reasonable and necessary medical treatment for his compensable injury. Accordingly, for those reasons set forth herein, we find that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge must be reversed. [11] IT IS SO ORDERED. [12] _______________________________
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman _______________________________ MIKE WILSON, Commissioner [13] Commissioner Humphrey dissents.