Jacka v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 041399 MNWC,

Case DateApril 13, 1999
CourtMinnesota
EDWIN J. JACKA, Employee,
v.
COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO. SELF-INSURED/KEMPER NAT'L INS. CO., Employer/Appellant,
and
ARVOLD CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC and COMMISSIONER, DEP'T OF LABOR & INDUS., Intervenors,
and
MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL.
Minnesota Workers Compensation
Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals
April 13, 1999
         HEADNOTES          MEDICAL TREATMENT & EXPENSE - TREATMENT PARAMETERS. Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge's finding that the employee's treatment after April 3, 1995, was a valid departure from the permanent treatment parameters.          Affirmed.           Determined by Hefte, J., Pederson, J., and Wheeler, C.J.           Compensation Judge: James R. Otto           OPINION           RICHARD C. HEFTE, Judge          The self-insured employer appeals the compensation judge's finding that the employee's chiropractic treatment after April 3, 1995, was an appropriate departure from the parameters pursuant to Minn. R. 5221.6050, subp. 8D because the treatment decreased the employee's subjective complaints and improved his functional status. We affirm.          BACKGROUND          This court's previous opinion in this case, Jacka v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., slip op. (W.C.C.A. Mar. 12, 1997), is incorporated herein by reference. On June 22, 1993, Edwin Jacka, (employee) sustained an admitted work-related injury to his lumbar back in the course of his employment with Coca-Cola Bottling Company (self-insured employer). On May 23, 1994, the employee began treatment with chiropractor Dr. Jordan R. Arvold and continued treatment through the date of his hearing on June 19, 1996. The employer disputed liability for treatments rendered by Dr. Arvold from October 17, 1994 to June 19, 1996. Following a hearing, the compensation judge found that the treatment rendered by Dr. Arvold provided significant relief for the employee's condition, was consistent with accepted chiropractic practice, and was not excessive. The compensation judge found that the treatment rendered after April 3, 1995, was not authorized under the permanent treatment parameters of Minn. R. 5221.6200, subp. 3 and 5221.6010, subp. 2, but also found that the treatment was an appropriate departure from the parameters pursuant to Minn. R. 5221.6050, subp. 8D because it decreased the employee's subjective complaints and improved his functional status. On this basis, the compensation judge awarded payment to Arvold Chiropractic Clinic for...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT