4-302-830 (1998). MALLON E. DENNIS (Final Order).

• Case Date: July 02, 1998
• Court: Colorado

Colorado Workers Compensation 1998. 4-302-830 (1998). MALLON E. DENNIS (Final Order) INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICEIN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF MALLON E. DENNIS, JR., Claimant, v. HUGHES-SMITH, INC., Employer, and COLORADO COMPENSATION INSURANCE AUTHORITY, Insurer, Respondents.W. C. No. 4-302-830FINAL ORDER The claimant seeks review of a final order of Administrative Law Judge Wheelock (ALJ), which denied his claim for temporary disability benefits and medical benefits. The claimant asserts the ALJ erred in determining that the independent medical examiner's (IME) opinion that he was not maximum medical improvement (MMI) was overcome by clear and convincing evidence. We conclude the claimant failed to preserve this argument before the ALJ, and therefore, affirm. The claimant sustained a compensable injury to his head, neck, and shoulder when he was struck by a piece of plywood on April 19, 1996. On September 6, 1996, the treating physician placed the claimant at MMI and assigned him an impairment rating of seven percent of the whole person based on injury to the cervical region. The treating physician also found the claimant was suffering from bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), and assessed a fifteen percent impairment rating for the right upper extremity and a six percent impairment rating for the left upper extremity. The respondents contended that the CTS was not caused by the April 1996 injury. Consequently, they admitted liability for medical impairment benefits based on the seven percent cervical rating, but not the extremity ratings. In response, the claimant requested a Division IME on the issues of MMI and medical impairment. The IME physician issued his report on December 5, 1996, and opined the claimant is not at MMI. Specifically, the IME physician stated the claimant suffers from bilateral CTS caused by the April 1996 injury, and needs physical therapy "to work on cervical postures," a home exercise program, and an occupational therapy evaluation for wrist stabilization. The IME physician also stated there is no need for "surgical intervention" to treat the claimant's cervical spine. Following the IME report, the respondents filed an application for hearing listing the issues as MMI, apportionment, and whether the CTS is "related" to the industrial injury. The claimant added the issues of further temporary...