12-0054. AMOS M. SNODDY Employee v. OLGOONIK DEVELOPMENT LLC Employer and ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO. Insurer Defendants.
Court | Alaska |
Alaska Workers Compensation Decisions
2012.
Workers' Compensation Board
12-0054.
AMOS M. SNODDY Employee v. OLGOONIK DEVELOPMENT LLC Employer and ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO. Insurer Defendants
ALASKA WORKERS'
COMPENSATION BOARD AMOS M.
SNODDY, Employee, Applicant, v. OLGOONIK DEVELOPMENT LLC, Employer, and ZURICH
AMERICAN INS. CO., Insurer, Defendants.INTERLOCUTORY DECISION AND ORDERAWCB Decision No. 12-0054Filed with AWCB Anchorage, Alaskaon March 14,
2012AWCB Case No. 201102477Olgoonik Development's (Employer) November 4, 2011 Petition
seeking review of the Rehabilitation Benefits Administrator's designee's (RBA
designee) finding of eligibility for rehabilitation and reemployment benefits
for Amos Snoddy (Employee), and Employee's July 25, 2011 Petition for a second
independent medical evaluation (SIME) were heard on February 21, 2012 in
Anchorage, Alaska. Attorney Charles Coe appeared and represented Employee.
Attorney Jeffrey Holloway appeared and represented Employer and its workers'
compensation insurer. Employee appeared and was the only witness. As a
preliminary matter, Employee's late-filed hearing brief was accepted as timely
filed over Employer's objection and Employer was given an opportunity to submit
a written, post-hearing response to Employee's late brief. The record remained
open until February 27, 2012, for Employer's response and closed on February
27, 2012.
This decision examines the oral order accepting Employee's
untimely filed hearing brief over Employer's objection and memorializes it, and
decides Employer's petition appealing the RBA designee's decision finding
Employee eligible for rehabilitation and reemployment benefits, and Employee's
SIME petition on their merits.
ISSUES
As a preliminary matter, Employer objected to Employee's
hearing brief because it was filed late. Because Employee's hearing brief was
not filed within the time set forth by regulation, Employer contended the brief
should not be considered for any purpose.
Employee contended Employer suffered no prejudice as a result
of his late-filed brief. As the brief was hand-delivered on February 14, 2012,
Employee contended Employer actually received his brief sooner than it would
have had Employee mailed it in a timely manner. He sought an order accepting
his brief as filed.
1) Was the oral order accepting Employee's late-filed hearing
brief correct?
Employer contends Employee was not forthcoming in divulging his
entire, 10-year work history prior to his injury or his post-injury work to the
rehabilitation specialist evaluating his case. Accordingly, Employer contends
the RBA designee abused her discretion by not considering all of Employee's
relevant pre- and post-work-injury employment history. Accordingly, Employer
contends the matter should be remanded to the RBA designee with an order she
direct the assigned rehabilitation specialist to perform a more thorough
employment history evaluation.
Employee contends the assigned rehabilitation specialist only
asked him to provide his "primary" jobs for the past 10 years, and he did so.
He contends some pre- and post-injury employment included very short-term or
part-time jobs, which do not qualify him to work exclusively in those
positions. Though Employee admits he did not disclose some of his pre-injury
employment, he contends these jobs were insignificant and contends he complied
fully with instructions he received from his assigned rehabilitation
specialist. Employee contends the RBA designee's decision finding him eligible
for reemployment benefits should be affirmed.
2) Is the RBA designee's decision finding Employee eligible for
rehabilitation and reemployment benefits supported by substantial evidence, and
is it an abuse of discretion?
Employee contends there is a medical dispute between his
attending physicians and the Employer's medical evaluator (EME). He contends
the medical dispute is significant and an SIME would assist in resolving the
issues in this claim. Employee contends an SIME should be ordered.
Employer contends an SIME is premature as the medical dispute
over functional capacity, i.e., Employee's ability to return
to his job at the time of injury or to other jobs he has held or received
training for in the 10 years before his injury, or has held since his injury
for long enough to obtain skills to compete in the labor market according to
specific vocational preparation (SVP) codes, may resolve if the RBA designee's
decision is remanded. As new job descriptions for lighter-duty jobs may come
forth with a more thorough reemployment specialist evaluation of Employee's
work history, Employer contends no SIME should be ordered until the
reemployment benefits issue is remanded and a new eligibility report is
completed.
3. Shall an SIME be ordered?
FINDINGS OF FACT
A review of the available record establishes the following
relevant facts and factual conclusions by a preponderance of the
evidence:
1) In the 10 years prior to his injury subject of this claim,
Employee worked as a "fluid engineer" otherwise known as a "mud man" for
Halliburton, a jewelry sales associate for Zales, a bush order processor for
Costco, a security monitor for NANA, an inventory control and warehouseman for
Colville, as a material specialist for CH2M, on various inventory and
construction projects for Opti Staffing Group, as a material specialist and
project manager for Delta Development, a security person and bouncer for
Players House of Rock, a shoe sales associate at Nordstrom's, and as project
manager for Employer (Snoddy deposition at 15-30).
2) On March 8, 2008, Employee began employment with Delta
development group as an Administrative Assistant (Delta Development Group
acknowledgment, March 8, 2008).
3) On February 25, 2011, Employee injured his left elbow and
back when he slipped and fell at work (Report of Occupational Injury or
Illness, February 28, 2011).
4) Whether Employee also "injured" his neck at the time of his
fall is a factual and legal issue currently in dispute (observations,
record).
5) On or about May 27, 2011, Employer submitted notice to the
RBA advising Employee had been disabled for 90 consecutive days as a result of
his injury (Employer's Notice of 90 Consecutive Days of Time Loss for Injuries
Occurring on or After November 7, 2005, May 27, 2011).
6) There is no evidence Employee ever requested a reemployment
benefits eligibility evaluation (record).
7) On May 31, 2011, as a result of Employee having missed 90
consecutive days from work as a result of his work-related injury, Deborah
Reed, Workers' Compensation Technician, sent Employee a letter assigning Norman
Silta as his rehabilitation specialist to complete an eligibility evaluation
(letter, May 31, 2011).
8) On June 14, 2011, Mr. Silta sought opinions from Lawrence
Stinson, Jr., M.D., one of Employee's attending physicians. Dr. Stinson
diagnosed work-related cervical disc displacement, with radiculitis. Dr.
Stinson also predicted Employee would incur a ratable permanent impairment
(PPI) greater than 0% arising from his work-related injury, in accordance with
the American Medical Association Guides the Evaluation of Permanent
Impairment, 6th Edition (Guides) (letter, June 14,
2011, response signed by Dr. Stinson, June 20, 2011).
9) Mr. Silta also submitted job descriptions for Construction
Project Manager, and Mud-Plant Operator, and asked Dr. Stinson to predict
whether Employee would have permanent physical capacities to perform the
described jobs. To both inquiries, Dr. Stinson responded the answer was
"undetermined, may have surgery" (id. at 5-8).
10) On June 7, 2011, neurosurgeon Thomas Rosenbaum, M.D., saw
Employee as part of an EME panel. Dr. Rosenbaum diagnosed cervical spondylosis
and an "inconsequential" cervical strain by history secondary to the February
25, 2011 industrial injury (Rosenbaum EME report, June 7, 2011).
11) In response to the adjuster's specific questions, Dr.
Rosenbaum stated the February 25, 2011 injury was not "the substantial cause"
of Employee symptoms, noting he had significant, pre-existing cervical
spondylosis. In Dr. Rosenbaum's view, the work injury did not aggravate,
accelerate, or combine with a pre-existing condition to produce the necessity
for medical treatment or any disability. In his opinion, Employee was
undergoing active treatment before this injury and continued active treatment
following the work event. Dr. Rosenbaum believed Employee was not treated for
an "alternate pathology" following the work-related injury. Dr. Rosenbaum
opined the reason Employee was referred for "surgical intervention" was not the
work injury, but rather an "underlying pathology," which progressed over time.
Though Dr. Rosenbaum felt surgery was reasonable, it was not related to the
February 25, 2011 injury. Dr. Rosenbaum noted Employee was released to regular
duty work in relationship to the February 25, 2011 work injury, which he stated
did not play "a significant role" in regard to Employee's symptomatology. In
Dr. Rosenbaum's opinion, Employee was medically stable with respect to his
February 25, 2011 injury as there "was no significant injurious event." Lastly,
Dr. Rosenbaum stated Employee had no ratable impairment referable to the
February 25, 2011 industrial injury. Any impairment is related to Employee's
pre-existing spondylosis, but, because that condition is not medically stable
he cannot be rated according to Dr. Rosenbaum. Nevertheless, any rating for
cervical spondylosis would be a...
To continue reading
Request your trial