CLAIM NO. E616816
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED MARCH 12, 1998
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by JAY TOLLEY, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by ANGELA M. DOSS, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Reversed.
[1] OPINION AND ORDER[2] Respondent appeals from a decision of the Administrative Law Judge filed July 3, 1997 that claimant has proven entitlement to additional medical treatment from Dr. Dickinson. Based upon ourde novo review of the entire record, we find that claimant has failed to meet his burden of proof. [3] Claimant sustained an admittedly compensable injury on March 21, 1996, when he strained his lower back. As a result of claimant’s injury claimant has received medical treatment from Dr. John Garrett, a general practitioner and Dr. Roger Dickinson, an orthopedic specialist. Dr. Dickinson’s April 10, 1996, office notes outlined the course of treatment Dr. Dickinson planned to utilize to improve claimant’s condition. Claimant was not taken off work but was offered treatment and light-duty in accordance with his physicians’ instructions. Dr. Dickinson continued to follow claimant’s care until claimant was released without restrictions on August 28, 1996. [4] In his opinion, the Administrative Law Judge found that claimant was entitled to additional medical treatment based primarily on the fact that Dr. Dickinson’s medical reports are confusing. Dr. Dickinson wrote to the respondent’s nurse on August 28, 1996, stating that he had not seen the claimant since July 2, 1996. However, there is a medical record indicating that claimant was seen on August 28, 1996, after first missing his appointment which was originally scheduled for August 27, 1996. On August 28, 1996, after examining the claimant, Dr. Dickenson released claimant and indicated that claimant did not need to return for further treatment. Dr. Dickinson also prescribed Motrin for the claimant for the claimant to take on an as needed basis. [5] Claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the credible evidence that medical treatment is reasonable and necessary. Norma Beatty v. Ben Pearson, Inc., Full Workers’ Compensation Commission, Feb. 17, 1989 (D612291); B.R.Hollingshead v. Colson Caster, Full Workers’ Compensation Commission, Aug. 27, 1993 (D703346). In workers’ compensation cases, the burden rests upon the claimant to establish his claim for compensation by a preponderance of the evidence. Kuhn v.Majestic Hotel, 50 Ark. App. 23, 899 S.W.2d 845 (1995); Bartlettv. Mead Container Board, 47 Ark. App. 181, 888 S.W.2d 314 (1994). [6] In our opinion, we cannot find that claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence entitlement to additional treatment from Dr. Dickinson. Claimant was released by Dr. Dickinson on August 28, 1996, without any additional further treatment. Up until that time, Dr. Dickinson had continued to return claimant for follow-up visits on a regular basis. Claimant never attempted to return to Dr. Dickinson until approximately 8 or 9 months later when he sought medical treatment from Dr. Dickinson in April of 1997. In light of Dr. Dickinson’s August 28, 1996, release stating that claimant did not need additional treatment, respondent controverted claimant’s request for treatment in April of ’97. In our opinion, Dr. Dickinson’s August 28, 1996, office note is clear; claimant was not in need of additional treatment as of that date. To find otherwise, based upon this record, would require impermissible speculation and conjecture. [7] Accordingly, we find that claimant has failed to meet his burden of proof of entitlement to additional medical treatment. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the Administrative Law Judge. [8] IT IS SO ORDERED.
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman MIKE WILSON, Commissioner
[9] Commissioner Humphrey dissents. [10] DISSENTING OPINION[11] I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion finding that claimant is not entitled to additional medical treatment from Dr. Dickinson. [12] Claimant sustained an admittedly compensable injury on March 21, 1996, involving primarily his lower back and legs. He received initial medical treatment from a Dr. Garrett, and ultimately received a referral to Dr. Dickinson, an orthopedist. On August 28, 1996, Dr. Dickinson wrote to respondent employer’s plant nurse that:
[13] Strangely however, the record does contain an office note from Dr. Dickinson which is dated August 28, 1996, and pertains to claimant. While the note does indicate that claimant did not need to return for further treatment, it also contains instructions for claimant to utilize Motrin and what appears to be a “PRN” abbreviation next to those instructions. In addition, claimant provided the following credible account of his continued symptoms as of the June 12, 1997, hearing:. . . I have not seen Mr. Cruz since 7-2-96. He has failed to keep his last two appointments. I have no knowledge nor do I have any idea where Mr. Cruz is currently employed or if he is even working. If you will look at my last note of 7-2-96, I was going to keep his restrictions of lifting less than 30 pounds for six weeks. At that point in time, I thought he should be able to return to normal activity. And, as my note said, I did not think he would have any permanent impairment. I said he may have some persistent pain, but I did not feel he would have any impairment.
In summary, I have not seen Mr. Cruz since 7-2-96. I have no knowledge of his condition or whether or not he is even employed. When I last saw him, the restrictions were only for six weeks and were not permanent.
[14] In light of claimant’s foregoing testimony and the fact that he apparently received instructions to utilize medication after August 28, 1996, I would find that a return visit to Dr. Dickinson for the purpose of determining claimant’s need for additional medical care is appropriate. [15] As set out above, I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. [16] Pat West Humphrey, CommissionerQ. There is no dispute as to whether or not you have been injured. Tyson agrees that you are injured. And with that in mind, I want you to simply tell me what symptoms you had after that happened immediately?
A. I feel a pulling of the muscles of my leg and in my back. I get cramps or pain from all the way from the bottom from my foot all the way up through my leg up through my back.
Q. Do you still have those complaints as you have described them?
A. Yes, and sometimes even more stronger. When I, when I stretch my legs out I feel almost like a hard ball in the muscles of my legs.