12-0039. BOUNPENG SENGMANYPHET, Employee, Applicant, v. NORTH PACIFIC SEAFOODS, INC., Employer, and SEABRIGHT INSURANCE CO., Insurer, Defendants.
Court | Alaska |
Alaska Workers Compensation Decisions
2012.
Workers' Compensation Board
12-0039.
BOUNPENG SENGMANYPHET, Employee, Applicant, v. NORTH PACIFIC SEAFOODS, INC., Employer, and SEABRIGHT INSURANCE CO., Insurer, Defendants
BOUNPENG SENGMANYPHET, Employee, Applicant, v.
NORTH PACIFIC SEAFOODS, INC., Employer, and SEABRIGHT INSURANCE CO., Insurer,
Defendants.AWCB
Decision No. 12-0039 Filed with AWCB
Anchorage, Alaskaon February 29, 2012AWCB Case No. 200907219FINAL
DECISION AND ORDERBounpeng Sengmanyphet's (Employee) March 14, 2011, October 2,
2011, and December 13, 2011 workers' compensation claims, and his August 10,
2011 petition for a second independent medical evaluation (SIME) were heard on
February 1, 2012, in Anchorage, Alaska. Employee appeared by telephone,
represented himself and testified. Attorney Richard Wagg represented North
Pacific Seafood (Employer), and its workers' compensation insurer. The record
closed at the hearing's conclusion on February 1, 2012.
ISSUES
Employee contends he is entitled to an SIME because he disputes
the current PPI ratings and is entitled to a PPI rating from a physician of his
choosing. Employer contends there is no basis for an SIME, as there is no
medical dispute between Employee's attending physician and Employer's medical
evaluator (EME), and Employee is not entitled to another PPI rating simply
because he is dissatisfied with the rating he already received from his own
physician.
1) Is Employee entitled to an SIME or other medical evaluation
for his left eye injury?
Employee contends he is entitled to permanent partial
impairment (PPI) for his left eye injury. Employer contends Employee is not
entitled to any PPI for his left eye, as all the medical evidence, including
Employee's attending physician's opinion, states there is no ratable PPI to
Employee's left eye.
2) Is Employee entitled to PPI for his left eye injury?
Employee contends he is entitled to additional medical
treatment for his left eye. Employer contends there is no medical evidence
Employee needs any further treatment for his left eye injury.
3) Is Employee entitled to any additional medical care for his
left eye injury?
Lastly, Employee contends he is entitled to interest on his
ultimate PPI award. Employer contends Employee is not entitled to interest
because he is not entitled to PPI.
4) Is Employee entitled to interest on PPI?
FINDINGS OF FACT
A review of the entire record establishes the following
relevant facts and factual conclusions by a preponderance of the
evidence:
1) On May 24, 2009, Employee was handling fish when fish scale
went into his left eye (Employee; Report of Occupational Injury or Illness, May
25, 2009).
2) On March 14, 2011, Employee filed a claim for PPI, and
medical costs for his left eye (claim, March 14, 2011).
3) On June 20, 2011, Richard Bensinger, M.D., performed an EME
on Employee. Dr. Bensinger concluded Employee had 20/20 vision in both eyes,
clear corneas, "quiet interior chambers," reactive irises, normal fundi, and
lenses free of cataract. Dr. Bensinger diagnosed an acute left eye injury
substantially caused by the May 24, 2009 incident, which had resolved without
residuals. He recommended no further treatment, found Employee medically
stable, and opined he had no visual dysfunction or problems, resulting in a 0%
PPI rating under the American Medical Association's Guides to the
Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 6th Edition
(Guides) (Bensinger report, June 20, 2011).
4) On August 2, 2011, the parties appeared at a prehearing
conference. The board's designee advised Employee if his treating physician
felt Employee still needed care or needed to refer him to a specialist,
Employer would consider sending Employee to such a physician (Prehearing
Conference Summary, August 2, 2011).
5) On August 8, 2011, Matthew Guess, M.D., completed a
physician's report on Employee's behalf. Dr. Guess opined Employee was
medically stable as of 2009, was released to regular work, did not have a
permanent impairment, diagnosed Employee with dry eye syndrome and recommended
use of artificial tears (Physicians Report, August 8, 2011).
6) On August 8, 2011, Dr. Guess also completed a chart note for
Employee. He diagnosed dry eye syndrome in both eyes and recommended
over-the-counter reading glasses. Dr. Guess did not attribute the need for
reading glasses or the dry eye syndrome to Employee's work-related injury (Dr.
Guess chart note, August 8, 2011).
7) On October 5, 2011, the parties appeared at a prehearing
conference. The board's designee again explained Employee's need to obtain an
opinion from his attending physician stating Employee needed additional medical
care. The designee also explained to Employee if there were no medical disputes
between his attending physician and the EME, Employer would not agree to an
SIME. The designee...
To continue reading
Request your trial