Christopher Boucher Employee
Edward Buick, Inc. Employer
Associated Employers Insurance Company Insurer
No. 018358-03
Massachusetts Workers Compensation Decisions
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents
January 19, 2021
This
case was heard by Administrative Judge Benoit.
Paul
L. Durkee, Esq., for the employee.
Peter
P. Harney, Esq., for the insurer at hearing.
Dawn
M. Colozzo, Esq., for the insurer on appeal.
Long,
Fabricant and Koziol, Judges.
AMENDED
REVIEWING BOARD DECISION
LONG,
J.
The
insurer appeals the hearing decision, which denied its
discontinuance request and ordered §§ 13 and 30
benefits for psychiatric treatment. The insurer alleges the
judge committed error when he declined to consider the §
11A impartial opinion and adopted opinions found in the
additional medical evidence allowed by motion. Finding no
error in the judge's reasoning or findings, we affirm the
hearing decision.
This
claim has a lengthy procedural history, and, for purposes of
our review, we note there are two prior hearing decisions
issued by different administrative judges.
[1] Each decision
established liability for a June 11, 2003, industrial injury
involving, among other conditions, a spinal cord
syrinx.
2 The current litigation involves the
insurer's latest discontinuance request and § 1(7A)
defense relative to a claim for psychiatric
treatment.
3 The insurer appealed the conference denial
of its discontinuance request, and a § 11A impartial
examination was conducted by Dr. Stephen Saris on January 16,
2018. At the hearing on April 19, 2019, the judge allowed the
employee's motion to allow additional medical testimony,
and each party submitted additional medical exhibits. In his
December 11, 2019, hearing decision, the current
administrative judge denied the insurer's discontinuance
request and ordered the payment of psychiatric medical
treatment. In doing so, the judge adopted the medical
opinions of the employee's physicians (Drs. Nairus, Izzo,
Pease, Polizoti and Vinton) and specifically rejected Dr.
Saris' opinion, which disagreed with the very existence
of the heretofore mentioned thoracic syrinx. The judge found:
The § 11A examiner in the instant case is supportive of
the insurer's positions but has stated conclusions that
are contrary to the established law of the case. More
particularly, Dr. Saris states that the Employee does not
have "putative syringomyelia," but rather has
"an enlarged central canal, which is a normal variant.
It is a congenital condition that will not cause any clinical
...