WILLIAM JOHNSON, Employee/Respondent,
v.
DARCHUKS FABRICATION, INC. and HARLEYSVILLE INS., Employer-Insurer/ Appellants,
and
INJURED WORKERS PHARMACY, Intervenor.
No. WC19-6325
Minnesota Workers Compensation
Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals
June 18, 2020
MEDICAL
TREATMENT & EXPENSE - TREATMENT PARAMETERS; RARE CASE
EXCEPTION. Application of the rare case exception in
Jacka v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 580 N.W.2d 27, 58
W.C.D. 395 (Minn. 1998), is reviewed under the substantial
evidence standard set out in Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie
Jaycees, 358 N.W.2d 54, 59, 37 W.C.D. 235, 239 (Minn.
1984). Substantial evidence supported the compensation
judge’s award of payment for medication where the
employee suffered from long-term intractable pain, showed no
evidence of abusing that medication, wa carefully monitored
by the treating physician, and experienced a reduction in
pain from the medication.
Charles M. Cochrane, Cochrane Law Office, P.A., Roseville,
Minnesota, for the Respondent.
Emily
A. LaCourse, Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak & Pikala,
P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the Appellants.
Determined by: Patricia J. Milun, Chief Judge, David A.
Stofferahn, Judge, Deborah K. Sundquist, Judge
Compensation Judge: Grant R. Hartman
Affirmed.
OPINION
PATRICIA J. MILUN, Chief Judge.
The
employer and insurer appeal the compensation judge’s
award of payment for opioid medication in which the judge
found that the rare case exception to the treatment
parameters set out in Jacka v. Coca-Cola Bottling
Co., 580 N.W.2d 27, 58 W.C.D. 395 (Minn. 1998) applied.
As the compensation judge’s application of the rare
case exception to the treatment parameters in awarding the
requested medical treatment is supported by substantial
evidence, this court affirms that award.
BACKGROUND
This
matter is again before this court on appeal. The underlying
facts are set out in this court’s prior decision, 79
W.C.D. 285 (W.C.C.A. 2018), and that of the Minnesota Supreme
Court, Johnson v. Darchuks Fabrication, Inc., 926
N.W.2d 414, 79 W.C.D. 291 (Minn. 2019). For the purposes of
this appeal, the employee, William Johnson, suffered a
work-related injury on September 4, 2002, that resulted in an
intractable pain condition which was treated by prescription
of Oxycontin, Percocet, and methadone. In 2005, the
employee’s condition was assessed as not treatable by
surgery other than by amputation. At that time, the employee
was prescribed Endocet (an opioid medication) as the
treatment to address his ongoing left ankle pain by Gregory
Sperle, M.D. In 2009, Dr. Sperle’s treatment regimen
was assessed by Matthew Monsein, M.D., on behalf of the
employer and insurer. Dr. Monsein considered the
employee’s treatment, including Endocet and Neurontin,
to be reasonable, necessary, and causally related to the
employee’s work injury and resulting complex regional
pain syndrome (CRPS) condition. The employee continued
treating for pain using opioid medications.
On May
2, 2016, the employee underwent an independent medical
examination conducted by Randal Wojciehoski, D.P.M., D.O., on
behalf of the employer and insurer. Dr. Wojciehoski opined
that the employee was not experiencing CRPS and that the
employee be weaned off opioid medications. In an addendum
report dated July 11, 2017, Dr. Wojciehoski supplemented his
earlier report and affirmatively maintained that the employee
did not have CRPS, that his current opioid medication
(Endocet) was not prescribed properly under the treatment
parameters, and that the ongoing prescriptions of Lorazepam,
nifedipine, and Neurontin were neither reasonable nor
necessary to treat the employee’s chronic pain
condition.
Based
on the opinion of Dr. Wojciehoski, the employer and insurer
sent a letter to the employee’s treating physician, Dr.
Sperle, requesting compliance with Minn. R. 5221.6110, the
treatment parameter governing opioid medications. The...
