12-0033. MILDRED WADE Employee v. CHUGACH SUPPORT SERVICES Employer and ZURICH AMERICAN INS CO. Insurer Defendants.
Court | Alaska |
Alaska Workers Compensation Decisions
2012.
Workers' Compensation Board
12-0033.
MILDRED WADE Employee v. CHUGACH SUPPORT SERVICES Employer and ZURICH AMERICAN INS CO. Insurer Defendants
MILDRED
WADE, Employee, Applicant, v. CHUGACH SUPPORT SERVICES, Employer, and ZURICH
AMERICAN INS CO., Insurer, Defendants.AWCB Decision No. 12-0033Filed with AWCB Anchorage, Alaskaon February 23,
2012AWCB Case No. 200905161INTERLOCUTORY DECISION AND ORDERMildred L. Wade's (Employee) and Chugach Support Services and
Zurich American Insurance Company's (collectively Employer) request for a
hearing on the denial of the Compromise and Release Agreement (CandR) submitted
for approval on January 11, 2012, was heard on February 9, 2012, in Anchorage,
Alaska. Employee appeared telephonically and testified on her own behalf.
Attorney Robert J. Bredesen appeared on Employer's behalf. This decision
memorializes the oral orders at hearing. The record closed on February 9, 2012,
at the hearing's conclusion.
ISSUES
Employer contends the CandR should be approved as submitted
because Employee and Employer's adjuster entered voluntarily into the agreement
and the parties' wishes should be respected.
Employee contends the CandR should be approved because Employer
denied her benefits, including medical treatment, and the adjuster told her
there was nothing she could do and there were no more benefits available to
her. She settled because she has no money to live on and wants to get on with
her life.
1) Shall the CandR be approved?
Employer contends a Second Independent Medical Evaluation
(SIME) should not be ordered because there is no medical dispute. Employer
further contends this decision exceeds its authority to order an SIME when
there is no medical dispute.
Employee contends she is willing to do whatever this decision
orders and otherwise has no opinion regarding an SIME.
2) Shall an SIME be ordered?
FINDINGS OF FACT
A review of the record as a whole established the following
facts and factual conclusions by a preponderance of the evidence:
1) Employee sustained a work related injury to her left knee on
April 1, 2009, while working as a Mess Tech in King Salmon when she slipped on
the ice (April 3, 2009, Report of Occupational Injury or Illness (ROI)).
2) On April 2, 2009, Employee saw K. Sterner, ANP, at Camai
Community Health Center, Naknek (Camai), for left knee pain resulting from the
fall on ice the day before. The assessment was left knee pain and Employee was
restricted from working until follow-up on April 11, 2009. Employee was given
Ultram (April 2, 2009, Camai chart note and authorization for absence).
3) On April 8, 2009, Employee saw K. Sterner in follow-up for
her left knee pain. Employee was released to work as of April 13, 2009, with no
excessive walking (April 8, 2009 Camai chart note and authorization for
absence).
4) On April 14, 2009, K. Sterner took Employee off work for
15-21 days and recommended Employee see an orthopedic specialist. Employee was
wearing a knee brace and had mild swelling in the medial meniscus area (April
14, 2009, Camai chart note and Physician's Report).
5) On June 25, 2009, Employer controverted all benefits because
Employee had not returned releases (June 25, 2009 Controversion).
6) On July 26, 2009, Employer withdrew its controversion (July
26, 2009 withdrawal).
7) On September 1, 2009, Employee saw Timothy V. Sandell, M.D.,
in Colorado Springs, CO, with complaints of on-going left knee pain since her
fall on the ice in April. His assessment was left knee pain but he could not
rule out an underlying structural injury. Employee reported some improvement
with self-directed exercise. However, Dr. Sandell ordered a magnetic resonance
imaging scan (MRI) because he was concerned about underlying structural damage
(September 1, 2009, Sandell chart note).
8) On September 23, 2009, Employee had an MRI which showed no
evidence of acute internal derangement but possible subacute healing medial
collateral ligament (MCL) injury and some superficial medial femoral condyle
chondromalacia (September 24, 2009, MRI report).
9) On October 1, 2009, Dr. Sandell restricted Employee to light
duty work with a maximum lifting of 10 pounds, no repetitive bending or
squatting, no kneeling, and no prolonged standing or walking (October 1, 2009,
Return to Work Restrictions).
10) On January 10, 2010, Dr. Sandell opined Employee had a
possible MCL injury (January 19, 2010, Sandell chart note).
11) On January 19, 2010, Dr. Sandell continued the work
restrictions (January 19, 2010, Return to Work Restrictions).
12) On January 19, 2010, Dr. Sandell referred Employee to
physical therapy (January 19, 2010, referral).
13) On February 2, 2010, Employee began physical therapy
(February 2, 2010, Physical Therapy Evaluation).
14) On March 2, 2010, Dr. Sandell noted Employee was being
helped by pool therapy, although she still had significant pain. He noted once
Employee had completed physical therapy, if she still had pain he would have
her evaluated by an orthopedic surgeon (March 2, 2010, Sandell chart
note).
15) On April 9, 2010, Employee saw Michael R. Schuck, M.D., on
referral from Dr. Sandell. Dr. Shuck's impression was (1) history of medial
collateral ligament sprain, now healed and (2) pes anserine bursilis. He gave
Employee a cortico steroid injection (April 9, 2010, Schuck chart note).
16) On May 19, 2010, Dr. Sandell stated Employee was not
medically stable and was likely to have some permanent impairment (May 19,
2010, Sandell response to adjuster's letter).
17) On July 26, 2010, Employee saw Robert L. Messenbaugh, M.D.,
for an Employer's Medical Evaluation (EME). His diagnosis was bursitis
involving the pes anserine bursa along with an injury to her MCL at the time of
the April 2009 injury. He opined she was now medically stable, having reached
medical stability some two weeks after her evaluation by Dr. Schuck or by April
22, 2010. He further opined she had no permanent partial impairment (PPI) based
on the AMA Guides, 3rd Edition (July 26, 2010, EME
report).
18) Dr. Messenbaugh's rating is based on the incorrect edition
of the AMA Guides since Alaska law requires use of the 6th
Edition, and is, thus, invalid (experience, observations, and judgment).
19) On August 25, 2010, at the request of Employer, Paul L.
Benefanti, M.D., reviewed Dr. Messenbaugh's report and using...
To continue reading
Request your trial