CLAIM NO. E200063
DIAN YELL SLOAN, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT and CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICE CO., CARRIER, RESPONDENT
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED MAY 1, 1996
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by JAY TOLLEY, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by MICHAEL E. RYBURN, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Affirmed.
[1] OPINION AND ORDER
[2] Claimant appeals from a decision of the Administrative Law Judge filed July 5, 1995.
[3] We have carefully conducted a de novo review of the entire record herein finding that the claimant has an authorized referral to Terry Sites as her treating physician; that claimant is not entitled to additional medical treatment; and that there is no objective evidence of impairment. It is our opinion that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision is supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence, correctly applies the law, and should be affirmed.
[4] Claimant worked for respondent for approximately eleven years. Shortly after she began her employment, she began to experience neck and shoulder difficulties. Over the course of her employment with the respondent she has intermittently sought medical treatment. On June 6, 1991, claimant suffered what was deemed an “injury” and the claim was accepted as compensable. Claimant received benefits from that claim. Now claimant contends that she is entitled to a change of physician and additional medical treatment as well as permanent partial disability benefits. Respondent contends that claimant is not entitled to any additional benefits.
[5] The issue regarding whether Dr. Terry Sites is an authorized treating physician. A review of the record indicates that the issue of the treating physician was decided in the claimant’s favor by the Law Judge. We believe this is correct as a review of the record will indicate that the claimant’s treating physician, Dr. Michael Morse, referred the claimant to Dr. Sites. Therefore, the treatment of Dr. Sites is authorized and the respondent is liable for the reasonable and necessary medical treatment rendered by Dr. Sites.
[6] A.C.A. §
11-9-508 (a) (Supp. 1995) states that “[t]he employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such medical, surgical, hospital, . . . and other apparatus as may bereasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the employee.” In this case, it is clear that claimant is not entitled to continued medical services. Claimant acknowledges that she has been treated by Drs. Bonner, Sites, Morse, Raben, Covey and Weeks. She has also undergone an independent medical evaluation by Dr. Martinson. The medical evidence indicates that while claimant is working for the respondent, she has suffered neck and shoulder difficulties. However, while the claimant is off work her condition becomes asymptomatic. Almost unanimously, each healthcare provider has opined that claimant should not be working for respondent. Despite this, claimant remains adamant that she wants to continue at her job with respondent. We do not believe that it is reasonable or necessary to expect the respondent to continue to pay for the claimant’s medical treatment for a problem that would resolve if the claimant would simply find another line of work.
[7] A review of the medical reports contained in this record will show that the healthcare providers who have rendered treatment to the claimant are of the opinion that the claimant’s symptoms would abate within a reasonable time if the claimant changed jobs. We would point out that the objective medical tests which have been run on the claimant, MRI’s, and EMG/NCV studies, are normal and show no definable abnormalities. We find insufficient medical evidence to warrant additional medical treatment. Although claimant has been determined to have fibromyalgia or some other amorphous pain-based condition, there are no significant findings to support such diagnosis. Thus, we affirm this portion of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision which finds that any further medical treatment for the claimant by the respondent is not reasonable or necessary.
[8] Although claimant’s brief states that the Administrative Law Judge applied Act 796 law, the evidence is clear that he did not. In pertinent part A.C.A. §
11-9-704 (c)(1) (1987) provides:
At the hearing the claimant and employer may present evidence in respect of the claim and may be represented by any person authorized in writing for such purpose. The evidence may include verified medical reports which shall be accorded such weight as may be warranted from all the evidence of the case. Any determination of the existence or extent of physical impairment shall be supported by objective and measurable physical or mental findings. (Emphasis added.)
[9] While claimant contends that she is entitled to permanent partial disability benefits, Dr. Alice Martinson has stated that the claimant should not be assigned a permanent impairment rating but rather recommended that claimant’s work environment should be altered. Additionally, Dr. Michael Morse indicated that if claimant would change her work activities she would not have these pains. Dr. Susan Raben opined that claimant should go through vocational rehabilitation to find another line of work; a position which was reiterated by Dr. Bonner who suggested that claimant seek alternative employment. Additionally, Dr. Bonner noted that claimant’s difficulties are not disfiguring, and stated that her injury could be nondebilitating if she sought other employment.
[10] The above-cited statute mandates that any impairment rating must be supported by objective and measurable findings. Although claimant contends she does have objective findings (“knots” and specific “trigger points”), these symptoms are transitory. The preponderance of the medical evidence indicates that even these symptoms would diminish if claimant found different employment. Even Dr. Morse who assessed the claimant a 4% impairment rating to the body as a whole stated that the assessment was based on complaints of pain. We reiterate that all the objective test results have been normal. The MRI, the EMG and the nerve conduction studies do not indicate any abnormal findings.
[11] We find it odd that despite her allegedly severe pain, the claimant has failed to fully participate in her physical therapy or conditioning. It is repeatedly noted through her medical records that she was “nonparticipatory” or missed her physical therapy sessions. Without any degree of participation in these sessions, it is difficult to state from this record whether or not such treatment would have either alleviate or help the claimant’s physical complaints. Simply put, there is no evidence that claimant is entitled to any permanent physical impairment benefits.
[12] Thus, we affirm the July 5, 1995 decision of the Administrative Law Judge.
[13] IT IS SO ORDERED.
JAMES W. DANIEL, Chairman ALICE L. HOLCOMB, Commissioner
[14] Commissioner Humphrey dissents.
