BONNIE BRANDIA, Respondent,
v.
KEYSTONE AUTO. INDUS./LKQ CORP., and CCMSI, Respondents,
and
MINNEAPOLIS PAIN CTRS. and MED. ADVANCED PAIN SPECIALISTS, Appellant/Intervenor.
No. WC20-6344
Minnesota Workers Compensation
Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals
September 10, 2020
MEDICAL
TREATMENT & EXPENSE – TREATMENT PARAMETERS. Where
the compensation judge determined that the implantation of a
spinal cord stimulator (SCS) did not result in significant
pain relief and the medical provider did not comply with the
requirement to obtain a second opinion from outside the
provider’s practice, payment for the procedure was
properly denied.
Joshua
E. Borken, Law Office of Joshua Borken, St. Paul, Minnesota,
for the Employee Respondent. Eric S. Hayes, Brown &
Carlson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the
Employer/Insurer Respondents.
Michael G. Schultz, Sommerer & Schultz, PLLC,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the Intervenor Appellant.
Determined by: Sean M. Quinn, Judge, David A. Stofferahn,
Judge, Gary M. Hall, Judge.
Compensation Judge: Kirsten M. Tate
Affirmed.
OPINION
SEAN
M. QUINN, Judge.
The
intervenors, Minneapolis Pain Centers and Medical Advanced
Pain Specialists (collectively MAPS), appeal the compensation
judge’s denial of payment for the implantation of a
spinal cord stimulator (SCS) to treat the employee’s
pain symptoms. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On
September 1, 2013, the employee, Bonnie Brandia, suffered an
injury to her right elbow. She underwent several medical
treatments to alleviate her symptoms. Eventually, a MAPS
doctor recommended a trial SCS and, if the trial was
successful, the implantation of a permanent SCS. The trial
was performed in December 2016 and the permanent implant was
done in April 2017. In the time between the trial and the
permanent SCS procedures, the parties entered into a
stipulation for settlement. Prior to the settlement, MAPS had
been given notice of its right to intervene, but did not. Its
interest, as far as it existed at that time, was extinguished
by the award on stipulation signed by a compensation judge on
February 7, 2017. In late 2017, another doctor suggested the
employee try medical cannabis.
The
employer and insurer denied payment for the permanent SCS and
the medical cannabis and the matter came on for hearing
before a compensation judge on January 8, 2019. On February
15, 2019, the compensation judge granted the employee's
request for reimbursement for her out-of-pocket expenses
associated with medical cannabis, but denied the request for
payment for the permanent SCS. MAPS appealed the denial of
payment for the permanent SCS to this court.
We
affirmed most of the compensation judge’s
findings.[1] Those findings are the law of the
case.[2] The employee injured her right elbow
on or about September 1, 2013 as a result of repetitive
lifting and moving. (Finding 4.) The employee had carpal
tunnel relief surgery in 2015 at Summit Orthopedics which was
not successful in improving the employee’s symptoms.
(Finding 5.) Subsequently, the employee treated with Dr. Mark
Fischer at Twin Cities Orthopedics and underwent a course of
care which included a right elbow medial epicondyle release,
stellate ganglion blocks, and long-arm casting. At the
conclusion of this care, Dr. Fischer did not find any signs
of sympathetic dystrophy and instead diagnosed the employee
as suffering from elbow pain. (Findings 6-14.) The employee
then treated at MAPS, where she underwent stellate ganglion
blocks and pool therapy, which did not provide any relief. In
December 2016, the employee underwent a trial SCS and
reported a 55-60 percent reduction of pain and improved
sleep. She later underwent an implantation of a permanent SCS
in April 2017 where she reported pain, prior to the implant
of 3/10 at best and 8/10 at worst, and at the time of
implant, 5/10. By September 2017, she was reporting right arm
pain of 4/10 and continued to take various medications to
treat her pain symptoms. She then began medical cannabis and
soon after reported pain of 1/10 and a reduction toward
ultimately...
