4-652-824 (2008). ANDREW BURCHARD, Claimant, v. PREFERRED MACHINING, Employer, and HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO., Insurer, Respondents.

• Case Date: July 23, 2008
• Court: Colorado

Colorado Workers Compensation 2008. 4-652-824 (2008). ANDREW BURCHARD, Claimant, v. PREFERRED MACHINING, Employer, and HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO., Insurer, Respondents INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICEW.C. No. 4-652-824IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF ANDREW BURCHARD, Claimant, v. PREFERRED MACHINING, Employer, and HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO., Insurer, Respondents.FINAL ORDERThe claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Jones (ALJ) dated March 26, 2008, that denied and dismissed his request for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. We affirm. The ALJ's findings are summarized as follows. The claimant worked as a machinist. On January 22, 2005, he sustained bilateral carpal tunnel injuries to both wrists while working. The claimant received medical treatment for his carpal tunnel injuries, including surgery. A Division-sponsored independent medical examination (DIME) resulted in the claimant being placed at maximum medical improvement as of December 12, 2005, with scheduled impairment ratings for his upper left and right extremities of 16 percent and four percent, respectively. The scheduled impairment ratings were subsequently upheld by another ALJ after a hearing at which the claimant spoke English and did not use an interpreter. A functional capacity evaluation (FCE) performed in December 2005 demonstrated that the claimant could perform at a modified, medium-level of work. The claimant's carpal tunnel condition has improved. Several of the physicians involved in the case approved of the FCE and the vocational evidence presented by the respondents' vocational expert demonstrate that employment for the claimant exists within his work restrictions. One of the physicians, Dr. Orent, performed an independent medical examination of the claimant and opined that the FCE made it clear that the claimant was not permanently and totally disabled. He further opined that there were no medical reasons why the claimant could not work within restrictions. The ALJ was not persuaded that the claimant was entitled to PTD benefits and denied and dismissed his claim. The ALJ noted that Drs. Gellrick, Danahey, and Orent rendered medical opinions consistent with the FCE. The FCE recommendations included limiting the claimant's work capacities to "modified medium" work levels and provided specific limitations for various functions such as lifting and repetitive movements. Exhibit D at 42. The ALJ credited the opinions of Ruthe Hannigan, who testified as an expert witness in the field of vocational rehabilitation. Tr. (1/28/08) at 101. She referred to the FCE for defining the claimant's functional capacities. Tr. (1/28/08) at 105, 111; Exhibit P at 96. Ms. Hannigan relied on the physicians regarding the claimant's medical condition, which she considered to be "standard protocol." Tr. (1/28/08) at 105, 111-12, 119, 140. Her review of the claimant's case included reviewing medical records, interviewing, determining his work history, and researching to determine job options in the labor market in terms of the claimant's physical capacities. Tr. (1/28/08) at 128. She identified several job positions that she determined to be consistent with the work restrictions imposed by the FCE. Tr. (1/28/08) at 107-14; Exhibit P at 101, 103-05, 145. She screened jobs, calling employers and recommending them based on what the doctors indicated that the claimant could physically perform. Tr. (1/28/08) at 202. She considered the claimant's English skills to be "just fine," and his handwriting to be "excellent." Tr. (1/28/08) at 110, 122. She opined that there were "still hundreds of jobs between modified medium and sedentary that exist." Tr. (1/28/08) at 112. She explained that she sorted through various potential jobs to insure that they were within the claimant's functional capacities and restrictions, including his language skills. Tr. (1/28/08) at 115. She explained that a modified medium level of work "simply means that he cannot lift as much as the classic medium duty category lifts." Tr. (1/28/08) at 182. She considered the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) to be "a very broad gross generalization for all national jobs across the United States" and "nowhere near as...