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
December 15, 2020
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.
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.
3The 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
...