Cejvanovic v. Olive Garden, 012721 IAWC, 5066584.03

Docket Nº5066584.03
Case DateJanuary 27, 2021
CourtIowa
KASANDRA CEJVANOVIC, Claimant,
v.
OLIVE GARDEN, Employer,, and, XL INSURANCE AMERICA, INC.,, Insurance Carrier, Defendants.
No. 5066584.03
Iowa Workers Compensation
Before the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner
January 27, 2021
         REHEARING DECISION           BENJAMIN G. HUMPHREY DEPUTY WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER          The undersigned granted rehearing under rule 876 I.A.C. in order to consider a medical opinion by Stanley Mathew, M.D., the defendants, Olive Garden and XL Insurance America, Inc., did not timely share with the claimant, Kasandra Cejvanovic, before the hearing on Cejvanovic’s application for alternate care. The untimely sharing of Dr. Mathew’s opinion prevented Cejvanovic from offering the opinion as evidence at that hearing. Cejvanovic filed as Claimant’s Exhibit 4 Dr. Mathew’s opinion, which is admitted into evidence and will be considered, along with the parties’ other evidence, in this rehearing decision.          The findings of fact section of this rehearing decision supplements the findings of fact in the alternate care decision. The conclusions of law and order sections in the alternate care decision is hereby rescinded and replaced by the conclusions of law and order sections in this rehearing decision.          The record consists of:
1) Claimant’s Exhibits 1 through 4; and
2) Defendants’ Exhibits A and B.
         ISSUE          The issue on rehearing is whether Cejvanovic is entitled to alternate care under Iowa Code section 85.27 in the form of ongoing care with Dr. Stanley.          FINDINGS OF FACT          After receiving the independent medical examination (IME) report by Robert L. Broghammer, M.D., defendants shared it with Dr. Mathew for his review. (Cl. Ex. 4) Dr. Mathew stressed that his opinions come from his standpoint as a practitioner in the areas of physical medicine, rehabilitation, and pain management, as opposed to Dr. Broghammer’s, which are from an occupational medicine standpoint. (Cl. Ex. 4) Dr. Mathew opines as follows:
In regard to Dr. Broghammer’s opinions that [were] stated in question
...

To continue reading

Request your trial