RAMDAI ALLIE, Employee/Respondent,
v.
HEALTH CARE SERVS. GROUP and AM. INS. GROUP, with GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVS., INC. (CLAIMS ADM’R), Employer-Insurer/ Appellants.
No. WC19-6250
Minnesota Workers Compensation
Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals
July 15, 2019
PRACTICE
& PROCEDURE – ESTOPPEL; APPEALS – LAW OF THE
CASE; MEDICAL TREATMENT & EXPENSE. A request for approval
of surgery intended to treat a work-related injury is not
barred by collateral estoppel or the law of the case where
the facts establish that the employee’s condition has
not improved since the prior approved surgery and no prior
appeal established any facts limiting the parties in
subsequent proceedings.
MEDICAL
TREATMENT & EXPENSE – SURGERY; EVIDENCE –
MEDICAL RECORDS. The compensation judge’s award of
surgery, incorrectly described as a three-level fusion, is
supported by substantial evidence where the surgeon’s
proposed procedure is quoted from the employee’s
medical record and no other specific procedure was offered as
an alternative.
Scott
A. Teplinsky, Teplinsky Law Group, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
for the Respondent.
Thomas
V. Maguire, Brown & Carlson, P.A., Minneapolis,
Minnesota, for the Appellant.
Determined by: Gary M. Hall, Judge, Patricia J. Milun, Chief
Judge, Sean M. Quinn, Judge.
Compensation Judge: Miriam P. Rykken.
Affirmed
as modified.
OPINION
GARY
M. HALL, Judge.
The
employer and insurer appeal the compensation judge’s
award of surgery to the employee. As the compensation
judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence
and as the doctrines of collateral estoppel and the law of
the case are inapplicable, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
The
employee, Ramdai Allie, worked as a housekeeper for the
employer, Health Care Services Group. On January 28, 2016,
the employee suffered a fall on ice in the employer’s
parking lot while coming in to work. The employee was
diagnosed with a closed L1 compression fracture and required
nursing care for one month as she could not stand or walk.
Conservative treatment, including physical therapy and
transforaminal epidural injections, did not resolve the
employee’s symptoms, particularly low back pain and
right-side radicular pain. The employee began working with a
QRC and a rehabilitation plan was filed. The employer and
insurer admitted the work injury and paid benefits.
With
the failure of conservative treatment, the employee sought
approval of surgery in the nature of an L1-L2 posterior
decompressive foraminotomy. The employer and insurer sought a
determination that the employee had reached maximum medical
improvement (MMI), denial of the proposed surgery, and
discontinuance of the rehabilitation plan. These issues came
before a compensation judge who issued a Findings and Order
on July 21, 2017. The judge found that the employee was not
at MMI and continued to be eligible for rehabilitation
services, and that the proposed surgery was reasonable,
necessary, and causally related to the January 28, 2016, work
injury. The July 21, 2017, Findings and Order was not
appealed.
On
August 25, 2017, the employee underwent the approved L1-L2
posterior decompressive foraminotomy, performed by Praveen
Baimeedi...
