CLAIM NO. D504539
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED APRIL 14, 1999
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by the HONORABLE BILL WIGGINS, Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas.
Respondents represented by the HONORABLE WAYNE HARRIS, Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Reversed.
[1] OPINION AND ORDER[2] The respondents appeal an administrative law judge’s opinion filed September 9, 1998. The administrative law judge found that the claimant has proven entitlement to additional medications for treatment of her two compensable injuries. After conducting de novo review of the entire record, we reverse the opinion of the administrative law judge. [3] The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained compensable injuries to her low back and right foot on March 29, 1985. Dr. Randall Carson examined the claimant on September 8, 1997. Dr. Carson assessed chronic back and ankle pain, stable, and “end of healing period,” but he prescribed further medication for the claimant. The carrier declined to provide further prescription medication after February 17, 1998, and the respondents controverted any further benefits after that date. Dr. Carson wrote on February 19, 1998:
[4] Dr. Paul Raby, an orthopaedic surgeon, examined the claimant on March 9, 1998 and wrote the following:In my opinion Ms. Williams reached MMI as of 9/8/97. She needs no further care or work up for this problem. It is further stated that in my opinion, she would be best served by obtaining future prescription and care for her chronic recurrent pain from her personal physician and would also state that in my opinion this case should be closed as a W/C case as of 9/8/97.
[5] Dr. Raby diagnosed disc herniation at L5-S1 on the right side, and an old crush injury of the right heel. He opined that the claimant had reached a maximum of recovery and healing from “those lesions,” but that the claimant remained with chronic pain and needed support with medication. Dr. Raby prescribed medication and discharged the claimant to return as needed. [6] The claimant subsequently filed a claim for additional workers’ compensation benefits, contending that the respondents should pay the medical and prescription bills submitted to them. The respondents contended that Dr. Raby’s examination of the claimant did not constitute reasonable and necessary medical treatment. The parties submitted the record to the administrative law judge on August 13, 1998. The administrative law judge found that the claimant is entitled to additional medical treatment for her compensable injuries. Respondents appeal. [7] Employers must promptly provide medical services which are reasonably necessary for treatment of compensable injuries. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a) (1987). However, injured employees have the burden of proving, by a preponderance of evidence, that medical treatment is reasonably necessary for treatment of the compensable injury. Norma Beatty v. Ben Pearson, Inc., Full Workers’ Compensation Commission, Feb. 17, 1989 (D612291). Medical treatment intended to reduce or enable an injured worker to cope with chronic pain attributable to a compensable injury may constitute reasonably necessary medical treatment. TinaHaskins v. TEC, Full Workers’ Compensation Commission, July 14, 1993 (E107391); Billy Chronister v. Lavaca Vault, Full Workers’ Compensation Commission, June 20, 1991 (D704562). [8] After de novo review, we must reverse the administrative law judge’s finding that the claimant is entitled to additional medication at the respondents’ expense. The claimant sustained compensable injuries in 1985. Twelve years later, on September 8, 1997, Dr. Carson pronounced that the claimant had reached the end of her healing period. On February 19, 1998, Dr. Carson again pronounced MMI and opined that the workers’ compensation case should have been closed as of September, 1997. Dr. Carson thought that the claimant would be best served by obtaining future medicine from her personal physician. On March 9, 1998, Dr. Raby opined that the claimant had reached maximum recovery. He stated that the claimant needed medication for chronic pain, but Dr. Raby did not attribute this pain to any work-related injury. [9] Therefore, we find that the claimant has failed to prove that she is entitled to further treatment or medicine for her compensable injuries of 1985. We reverse the opinion of the administrative law judge awarding benefits and dismiss this claim. [10] IT IS SO ORDERED.This patient has been investigated in the past and her diagnosis was disc herniation of the lumbar spine at L5-S1 on the right side. A CAT scan of the lumbar spine done at Sparks Hospital in 1986 showed the presence of a large fragment in the canal at the level of L5-S1 on the right side. This patient sustained also a work-related injury in 1985 when she got a crush injury of the right heel, hit by a forklift. The injury necessitated 32 stitches according to the patient and since then, she remains with numbness and weakness of the right heel. . . .
She complains of pain at the level of the lumbar spine on the right side over the right sacroiliac joint and paravertebral muscles on the right side. She also complains of weakness and numbness of the right heel.
__________________________
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman __________________________ MIKE WILSON, Commissioner