2006-009. David J. Berrey Movant vs. Arctec Services and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. Respondents.
Case Date | April 28, 2006 |
Court | Alaska |
Alaska Workers Compensation Decisions
2006.
Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission
2006-009.
David J. Berrey Movant vs. Arctec Services and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. Respondents
Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals
Commission David J. Berrey,
Movant, vs. Arctec Services and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.
Respondents.Decision
No. 009 April 28,
2006 WCAC Appeal No. 06-007 AWCB No. 200120509Memorandum Decision
Memorandum Decision on Motion for Extraordinary Review of
Alaska Workers' Compensation Board Order No. 06-0031, Fairbanks Panel, by
William Walters, Chairman, and Chris Johansen, Board Member for
Management.
Appearances: David J. Berrey, Pro Se; Richard Wagg, Russell,
Tesche, Wagg, Cooper and Gabbert, for Appellees, Arctec Services and Lumbermens
Mutual Casualty Co.Commissioners:
John Giuchici, Philip Ulmer, Kristin
Knudsen.By Kristin Knudsen, Chair:
Mr. Berrey asks the commission to review an interlocutory order
by the board. In its decision, the board voided the Reemployment Benefits
Administrator (RBA) designee's determination that Berrey was eligible for
reemployment benefits, directed Berrey to attend a second independent medical
examination (SIME), and retained jurisdiction to determine whether Berrey had a
compensable permanent impairment and whether his condition was medically
stable.
Berrey argues that the board erroneously voided the RBA
designee's decision and division officer's statement to him that "causation was
not an issue" barred the board from considering whether the permanent
impairment is compensable. He contends the only question before the board was
if he had a permanent impairment that would make him eligible for reemployment
benefits.
Because the board made no decision on the issue of compensable
permanent impairment, and the employee agreed to a hearing on the issue of
medical stability and eligibility for reemployment benefits, we conclude that
the board has not departed from its regulations or the requirements of due
process. We also note that the process of extraordinary review, if applied in
this case, would only delay ultimate resolution of this litigation and impose
substantial costs on the parties. Therefore, we deny the motion for
extraordinary review.
Factual background.
The facts summarized in this decision are drawn from the
board's decisions, David Berrey v. Arctec Svcs. I, AWCB
Decision No. 06-0031 (February 7, 2006) and David Berrey v. Arctec
Svcs. II, AWCB Decision No. 06-0050 (March 2, 2006). We make no
independent findings of fact. We note the parties did not challenge the board's
recitation of the facts of the case.
David J. Berrey was employed by Arctec Services as a laborer at
Clear, Alaska when, in the summer of 2000, he developed pain in his right heel.
His physician, then Ralph Dixon, DPM, diagnosed planter fascitis, bursitis and
calcaneal bone spur, related to Berrey's employment. Arctec paid temporary
total disability (TTD) compensation and medical benefits. Berry transferred his
care to a PA-C (physician assistant - clinician) in the office of Cary Keller,
MD. The PA-C determined he was released, with restrictions, to work in February
2001, and that his condition was medically stable on March 28, 2002.
In September 2002, the PA-C noted the employee continued to
have problems with his foot at work and recommended to the employer's medical
manager that he be evaluated for vocational rehabilitation. In October 2002,
the employer inquired about medical stability and the PA-C responded that the
employee was medically stable. The employer then controverted further TTD
compensation.
In July 2003 the PA-C noted that the employee should not walk,
stand or climb on concrete floors. In August 2003, Berrey asked for an
evaluation(fn1) to determine if he was eligible for reemployment benefits.(fn2)
Although she believed that Berrey's condition would not result in a ratable
permanent impairment, in January 2004 the PA-C recommended to the RBA that he
be found eligible for retraining.
If an employee suffers a compensable injury that may
permanently preclude an employee's return to the employee's occupation at the
time of injury, the employee or employer may request an eligibility evaluation
for reemployment benefits. The employee shall request an eligibility evaluation
within 90 days after the employee gives the employer notice of injury unless
the administrator determines the employee has an unusual and extenuating
circumstance that prevents the employee from making a timely request. The
administrator shall, on a rotating and geographic basis, select a
rehabilitation specialist from the list maintained under (b)(6) of this section
to perform the eligibility evaluation.
On March 10, 2004, the RBA designee, Mickey Andrew, assigned a
specialist to do an evaluation to determine if Berrey was eligible for
reemployment benefits.(fn3) By then, Berrey had moved to Arizona and begun care
by Carry Zang, DPM. The specialist sent a letter to Dr. Keller's office in
Fairbanks on March 31, 2004. Dr. Keller's office responded that Berrey could
return to work in three job descriptions (construction worker, firefighter, and
utility laborer). In an eligibility evaluation report dated April 15, 2004, the
specialist recommended that Berrey be found not eligible for reemployment
benefits.
RBA designee Andrew rejected the report because the PA-C's
responses were not cosigned by a physician; there was no documentation whether
or not the employee would have a permanent impairment; and, the job
descriptions were approved subject to modifications of standing and walking.
She suggested the specialist contact Mr. Berrey's current physician, Dr.
Zang.
The specialist contacted Dr. Zang and reported on May 18, 2004,
that Dr. Zang wanted to perform surgery, but the employee was reluctant, and
that Dr. Zang would "discuss giving an impairment rating if the employee would
make an appointment to see him." On May 21, 2004, the specialist reported that
Dr. Zang had disapproved the three positions of construction worker,
firefighter, utility laborer.
RBA designee Andrew issued a determination that Berrey was
eligible for reemployment benefits on October 25, 2004, stating
Dr. Zang has indicated that your predicted permanent physical capacities are less than those required of your job at time of injury and of jobs you held in the 10 years prior to your injury. Your employer is unable to offer alternative employment per AS 23.30.041(f)(1). You have not received vocational rehabilitation for a previous workers' compensation claim. Finally, you have or are expected to have a permanent partial impairment at the time of medical stability.(fn4)The employer petitioned for review of the RBA designee's determination. After the designee's determination, the employee was referred by Dr. Zang to Dr. Leonetti for a permanent impairment rating. Dr. Leonetti produced a rating of 10% permanent partial impairment of the right foot on February 14, 2005. The employer controverted the rating. Dr. Leonetti reported a 3% permanent partial impairment of the whole person on March 21, 2005. The employer sent the employee to an employer medical evaluation, performed July 6, 2005. The employer's medical evaluator, Dr. Marble, indicated the employee was medically stable and had no ratable permanent...
To continue reading
Request your trial