CLAIM NOS. E701782 and E612295
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED JULY 26, 2000
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by the HONORABLE LAURA McKINNON, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Respondents represented by the HONORABLE CURTIS L. NEBBEN, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Decision of administrative law judge: Vacated and remanded.
ORDER
The claimant appeals an opinion and order filed by the administrative law judge on February 2, 2000. In that opinion and order, the administrative law judge found that the claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the medical treatment he received from Dr. Raben and Piechal was causally related to his compensable injuries in his left knee and left shoulder. The administrative law judge also found that the medical treatment at issue was “unauthorized”. The administrative law judge found that the claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to additional temporary total disability benefits subsequent to August 1, 1997, as a result of the compensable injuries to his left shoulder and left knee, and the administrative law judge found that the claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to any permanent partial disability benefits in excess of the 10% permanent physical impairment rating already paid by respondent with respect to the claimant’s left knee. After conducting a de novo review of the entire record, and for the reasons discussed below, we find that the administrative law judge’s opinion should be vacated and this case remanded for additional proceedings.
First, to the extent that the administrative law judge’s February 2, 2000, opinion finds that the treatment of Dr. Piechal and Dr. Raben is “unauthorized”, we note that this finding appears to be inconsistent with the statutory interpretation found by a majority of the Full Commission in Savage v. City of Little Rock, Full Workers’ Compensation Commission, opinion filed October 7, 1999 (Claim No. E708648), filed 4 months before the administrative law judge’s decision in this case.
Second, to the extent that the administrative law judge found that the treatment of Dr. Piechal and Dr. Raben, and the claimant’s additional temporary total disability are not causally related to the claimant’s compensable shoulder injury or his compensable knee injury, we note that there is an unresolved issue in this case as to whether or not the claimant’s sciatica is a compensable consequence of his compensable left knee injury, and we note that the claimant’s attorney specifically reserved the issue of the compensability of the claimant’s low back condition in the middle of the hearing in this case. See, T. 21. Therefore, we are presently incapable of addressing the issue as to whether or not the claimant’s back problems, for which he has received some of the medical treatment at issue and for which he has been found to be incapacitated to earn by his treating physician during some of the period that he currently seeks temporary total disability compensation, is a compensable consequence of his admittedly compensable knee injury. Moreover, if we were to strictly limit our review as to whether or not the claimant’s temporary total disability and Dr. Piechal’s and Dr. Raben’s treatment is causally related to the claimant’s knee and his shoulder, as the claimant required the administrative law judge to do, without consideration as to whether or not the claimant’s back condition is a compensable consequence of his admittedly compensable knee injury, the Full Commission would likely be required to address these exact same compensability issues for this exact same medical treatment and period of temporary disability again after the parties have litigated the compensability of the claimant’s back condition as an alleged compensable consequence of his knee injury at some point in the future.
Under these circumstances, we vacate the February 2, 2000, decision of the administrative law judge and remand to the administrative law judge for reconsideration of the issues as to whether or not the medical treatment at issue is “unauthorized” in light of our prior decision in Savage, supra. In addition, the administrative law judge is directed to take such additional action and conduct such additional proceedings as may be necessary to determine the issue as to whether or not the claimant’s back problems are a compensable consequence of the claimant’s admittedly compensable knee injury, and, if so, to determine whether or not respondents are liable for some or all of the treatment of Dr. Piechal and Dr. Raben, and for some or all of the period of additional temporary disability compensation that the claimant seeks, as a result of his back condition.
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the decision of the administrative law judge, dismiss the claimant’s appeal, and remand this case to the administrative law judge for additional proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman
________________________________
PAT WEST HUMPHREY, Commissioner
________________________________ MIKE WILSON, Commissioner