ANTONIO D’ARISTOTILE, S.S. xxx, PLAINTIFF,
v.
M&M CONTRACTING OF MICHIGAN AND RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY (INSOLVENT) C/O MICHIGAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, DEFENDANTS.
No. 2006-159
Michigan Workers Compensation
State of Michigan Department of Labor & Economic Growth Workers’ Compensation Agency Board of Magistrates
July 14, 2006
The
social security number and dates of birth have been redacted
from this opinion.
HEARING DATES 6/29/06
Richard Dorman (P23043) on behalf of plaintiff
Lawrence Cianciosi (P41328) on behalf of defendants
OPINION
MARY
C. BRENNAN, MAGISTRATE (178), JUDGE
STATEMENT
OF CLAIM
In
their petition, filed 10/25/05, defendants allege that
plaintiff’s benefits should be suspended for his
failure to undergo reasonable and necessary medical
treatment.
DISCUSSION,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Plaintiff
sustained a severe injury to his face and head on October 1,
1985. In a prior decision, I found the injury to be disabling
and awarded plaintiff ongoing weekly benefits and medical
treatment. Defendants now claim that plaintiff’s weekly
benefits should be suspended for his refusal to receive
reasonable and necessary medical treatment.
In
Michigan, weekly benefits may be suspended if an employee
refuses reasonable treatment that is expected to relieve the
disability. The standard, as summarized by the commission in
Kennedy v Davy Songer, Inc, 1998 ACO 701 (1998),
requires the magistrate to first determine whether the
proposed treatment could present a “danger to life or
health, or expose plaintiff to extraordinary suffering”
and then, if the procedure does not present any such risk, to
determine whether the treatment offers a “reasonable
chance” to relieve the disabling condition. The
treatment proposed by defendants in this case is the
replacement of plaintiff’s old obdurator with a new,
and better fitting device and implants to secure it.
According to Dr. Bucheister, the only expert to testify in
this matter, this proposed treatment...
