BONNIE L. BRANDIA, Employee/Respondent,
v.
KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE And CCMSI, Employer-Insurer/Respondents,
No. WC19-6268
Minnesota Workers Compensation
Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals
October 25, 2019
MEDICAL
TREATMENT & EXPENSE - REASONABLE AND NECESSARY. Where the
compensation judge did not address conflicting evidence in
the record regarding whether the implantation of a spinal
cord stimulator (SCS) could be reasonable and necessary for a
non-CRPS diagnosis or whether the SCS was consistent with
treatment parameters, this matter is remanded to the
compensation judge for further findings and analysis.
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 Appellant.
Determined by: Sean M. Quinn, Judge, David A. Stofferahn,
Judge, Gary M. Hall, Judge.
Compensation Judge: Kirsten M. Tate
Vacated
in part and remanded.
OPINION
SEAN
M. QUINN, Judge.
Intervenor
MAPS appeals from the compensation judge's denial of
payment for procedures involving the implantation of a spinal
cord stimulator. We vacate in part and remand to the
compensation judge for reconsideration.
BACKGROUND
Bonnie
Brandia, the employee, sustained an admitted work injury to
her right upper extremity while working for Keystone
Automotive, the employer, in September 2013. The employee
began treating at MAPS, the intervenor and appellant, in
December 2015. To treat what had been diagnosed as chronic
regional pain syndrome (CRPS) of the employee's right
upper extremity, medical providers at MAPS implanted a trial
spinal cord stimulator (SCS) in the employee in December
2016, and implanted a permanent SCS in April 2017.
The
employer and its insurer denied payment for the procedures,
claiming that they were not reasonable or necessary medical...
