Workers' Compensation Appeals board State Of California
KENNETH GROM, Applicant,
v.
SHASTA WOOD PRODUCTS; And STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants.
No. RDG 0091839
California Workers Compensation Decisions
Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board State Of California
December 8, 2004
OPINION
AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION
On
November 12, 2004, we granted reconsideration in this matter
to provide an opportunity to further study the legal and
factual issues raised by the petition for reconsideration.
Having completed our review, we now issue our Decision After
Reconsideration.
Defendant,
Shasta Wood Products, by and through its insurer, State
Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF), seeks reconsideration of
the Findings, Award and Order, issued August 26, 2004, in
which a workers' compensation administrative law judge
(WCJ), awarded applicant "such further medical treatment
as is needed to cure and/or relieve from the effects
of the industrial injury" (emphasis added), specifically
allowing applicant a testosterone cream treatment recommended
by his treating physician.
Defendant
contends that the WCJ erred in awarding applicant further
medical treatment in the form of testosterone cream treatment
for his July 27, 1999 admitted injury to his back. Defendant
argues (1) that, in order to be entitled to this treatment,
applicant must establish that the treatment is necessary to
cure and relieve him from the effects of his
industrial injury, (2) that the treatment is not permitted
under the guidelines of the American College of Occupational
and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM), which guidelines are
presumed correct on the issue of the extent and scope of
medical treatment, (3) that applicant has not met his burden
to rebut the presumption and establish that a variance from
the guidelines is reasonably required to cure and relieve him
from the effects of his industrial injury, and (4) that the
recommended treatment is not supported by any evidence-based
medical treatment guidelines which establishes its efficacy,
but rather is based upon speculation that it may be
effective.
Applicant
filed an answer to defendant's petition for
reconsideration, and the WCJ filed a Report and
Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report),
recommending that the petition be denied.
Following
our review of the record, we hold that applicant is entitled
to such medical treatment as is reasonably required to
"relieve" from the effects of his industrial
injury, even if such treatment will not "cure" that
injury, and that the WCJ properly awarded the treatment at
issue. Accordingly, we will affirm the WCJ's
determination.
STATEMENT
OF FACTS
Applicant,
Kenneth Grom, sustained an injury to his back on July 27,
1999 arising out of and in the course of his employment by
Shasta Wood Products. His primary medical care has been
provided by Michael Hanley, D.C., in conjunction with Leonard
Soloniuk, M.D., a specialist in pain management. In a March
31, 2004 progress report, Dr. Hanley stated that applicant
remained "in...
