12-0021. JENNIFER C. FLETCHER Employee Claimant v. PACIFIC RIM GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING INC Employer and AK NATIONAL INS CO Insurer, Defendant(s).
Court | Alaska |
Alaska Workers Compensation Decisions
2012.
Workers' Compensation Board
12-0021.
JENNIFER C. FLETCHER Employee Claimant v. PACIFIC RIM GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING INC Employer and AK NATIONAL INS CO Insurer, Defendant(s)
Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission JENNIFER C. FLETCHER, Employee, Claimant v. PACIFIC
RIM GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING INC, Employer, and AK NATIONAL INS CO, Insurer,
Defendant(s).AWCB Decision No. 12-0021Filed
with AWCB Fairbanks, Alaskaon January 30, 2012AWCB Case No. 200715534FINAL
DECISION AND ORDERJennifer Fletcher's (Employee) May 19, 2010 workers'
compensation claim (WCC); August 9, 2010 letter seeking review of determination
of designee's July 30, 2010 ruling ordering Employee to sign employment,
unemployment and insurance releases; September 14, 2010 petition for protective
order; October 16, 2010 letter to revoke previously signed medical release;
February 17, 2011 letter requesting production of documents from Employer;
November 28, 2011 oral request seeking review of determination of designee's
July 30, 2010 ruling ordering Employer to revise its cover letter accompanying
medical releases; and Pacific Rim Geological Consulting's (Employer) August 19,
2010 petition to dismiss; October 5, 2010 petition for sanctions; and December
30, 2010 request for production were heard on December 8, 2011, in Fairbanks,
Alaska. Employee appeared and represented herself. Attorney Rebecca Holdiman
Miller represented Employer. Employee testified on her own behalf. There were
no other witnesses. The record closed at the hearing's conclusion on December
8, 2011.
ISSUES
Employee objects to consideration of Dr. Ritter's report on the
basis he did not testify at hearing and she did not have an opportunity to
cross examine him. Employee contends his report is poorly written and contains
misspellings.
Employer contends Employee's request for cross examination was
untimely.
1) Shall Dr. Kenneth J. Ritter, M.D.'s report be considered?
Employee contends she injured her groin while using a lightning
rod to probe permafrost at work, and is therefore entitled to medical and
related transportation costs, temporary total disability (TTD), interest, and
penalties.
Employer contends there is no medical evidence connecting
Employee's disability or need for medical treatment to her work and, therefore,
Employee does not raise the presumption of compensability and is not entitled
to the benefits she claims.
2) Is Employee entitled to medical and related transportation
costs?
3) Is Employee entitled to temporary total disability?
4) Is Employee entitled to interest?
Employee contends the controversion was unfair or frivolous
because the May 19, 2008 Notice of Controversion lists the wrong injury. She
also contends the controversion was improper because Employer first
controverted her benefits verbally, and only later controverted them in
writing.
Employer presented no evidence or argument on the unfair or
frivolous controversion issue, and its position is unknown.
5) Was Employer's controversion unfair or frivolous?
Employee contends because Employer unfairly or frivolously
controverted here benefits, she is entitled to a penalty.
6) Is Employee entitled to a penalty?
Employee contends Employer's cover letter accompanying medical
releases is too general, and implies any and all records may be released. She
contends the language in the cover letter should mirror the request in the
release.
Employer contends, pursuant to board's July 30, 2010 order, it
removed the "any and all records in you possession" language from its cover
letters sent to providers and, therefore, Employee's objections to its cover
letter accompanying medical releases is moot.
7) Did the Board Designee resolve Employee's August 5, 2010
petition for a protective order, regarding the content of Employer's cover
letter accompanying its medical release?
Employee confirms she is attempting to re-litigate the issue of
the medical release, and contends the medical release is overbroad. She
contends her petition was timely.
Employer contends all issues regarding medical releases were
resolved by the board's designee's July 30, 2010 ruling and Employee is
attempting to re-litigate this issue. It further contends Employee's petition
is untimely.
8) Did the Board Designee resolve Employee's September 14, 2010
petition for protective order regarding medical releases?
Employee contends employment, insurance and unemployment
releases are not relevant to her claim because she is not seeking vocational
rehabilitation benefits. She assures Employer she has not received unemployment
benefits. Employee objects to the employment release because she is worried
about her current employer's reaction to receiving the request. Employee
contends she filed proof of service with the board.
Employer contends issues relating to releases were settled by
the board's designee's July 30, 2010 rulings, and her rulings were correct. It
contends the 1996 injury and the 2007 injury are the same, unemployment
benefits and wages are relevant because of Employee's claim for temporary total
disability benefits, and it is entitled to discovery. Employer further contends
Employee never served it with her letter requesting a protective order and her
letter was untimely filed.
9) Did the Board designee abuse her discretion by ordering
Employee to sign employment, unemployment and insurance records
releases?
Employee contends the content of Employer's cover letter that
accompanied the medical release is the basis for her revocation.
Employer confirms the basis for Employee's revocation was the
content of the cover letter sent with the releases.
10) What is the effect of Employee's October 16, 2010
revocation of a previously signed medical release?
Employer contends its December 30, 2010 request for production
was made because Employee revoked the prior release and documents related to
Employee's communications with providers regarding Employer's request for
medical records or, the release of medical records, is relevant to its ability
to investigate Employee's claim.
Employee contends her "memo" and a subsequently executed
medical release "was enough" of a response to Employer's production
request.
11) Should Employee be ordered to comply with Employer's
December 30, 2010 request for production of documents related to Employee's
communications with providers regarding Employer's request for medical records
or the release of medical records?
Employee contends Employer failed to produce phone logs. She
further contends she believes she spoke to someone prior to the calls
documented in the produced records, and records pertaining to that
communication should be produced.
Employer contends it has produced all requested documents and
contends the running notes it has already produced serve as a phone log.
12) Has Employer complied with Employee's February 22, 2011
request for production of documents related to the adjuster's case file and
communications?
Employer contends Employee has willfully violated two board
discovery orders and deliberately disrupted the discovery process. It contends
its cover letter accompanying its release warns Employee of potential
consequences for not returning releases, and contends Employee was represented
in her previous claim, so she should be aware of the consequences of her
failure to cooperate in discovery. Employer further contends Employee did not
oppose its petitions.
Employee would not acknowledge whether or not she received
Employer's petitions, but demands proof Employer served her with its petitions.
13) Did Employee refuse to sign and return releases within 10
days after being ordered to do so and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1) In 1996, Employee suffered a workplace lifting injury, and
then underwent right inguinal hernia repair surgery in 2000. (Dr. Klinger
report, April 28, 2008, Fletcher deposition at 28-30).
2) Employee's pain following the 1996 hernia was on her right
side only. (Fletcher).
3) Employee's pain resolved following her 2000 surgery.
(Id.).
4) On August 23, 2007, Employee reported she suffered an
abdominal strain and injured her right groin while working for Employer as a
geological technician. (Report of Occupational Injury, September 21, 2007; WCC,
May 19, 2010).
5) Employee initially felt pain on her right side, and later
felt pain on her left. The pain on her left side was not as prominent, and
intermittent. (Fletcher).
6) The pain following the August 23, 2007 injury was bi-lateral
and more severe than the pain following Employee's 1996 hernia.
(Id.).
7) On April 28, 2008, Employee sought treatment from Dean
Klinger, M.D., complaining of pain in the right inguinal area and "of some in
the left inguinal area." Dr. Klinger was unable to identify a hernia in either
Employee's right or left side. He assessed "[r]ight and left inguinal pain,
unknown etiology," and ordered a CT scan. (Dr. Klinger report, April 28,
2008).
8) On April 28, 2008, a CT scan was performed. No recurrent
hernia was noted. (Dr. Patel report, May 6, 2008).
9) Employee sought no further treatment for right or left
inguinal pain following her April 28, 2008 appointment with Dr. Klinger.
(Records, observations, Fletcher).
10) On May 19, 2008, Employer filed a Controversion Notice,
denying payment of a medical bill from Southeast Surgical for $116.00 on the
basis "[n]o medical documentation received to support relationship between
treatment received on 4/28/08 and our...
To continue reading
Request your trial