Larson v. Bryan Rock Prods., 050599 MNWC,

Case DateMay 05, 1999
CourtMinnesota
THOMAS C. LARSON, Employee/Petitioner,
v.
BRYAN ROCK PRODS. and HOME INS. CO./RISK ENTERPRISE MGMT., Employer-Insurer.
Minnesota Workers Compensation
Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals
May 5, 1999
         HEADNOTES          VACATION OF AWARD - SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN CONDITION. Because there had not yet been a change in the employee's ability to work, additional surgery, or additional permanent partial disability, there had not yet been a substantial change in condition sufficient to justify vacating the award on stipulation.          Petition to vacate award denied.           Determined by Wilson, J., Wheeler, C.J., and Hefte, J.           OPINION           DEBRA A. WILSON, Judge          The employee petitions to vacate an award on stipulation filed in 1988, based on a substantial change in his medical condition. Finding an insufficient basis to vacate the award on stipulation at this time, we deny the petition.          BACKGROUND          The employee sustained a work-related injury to his low back on May 10, 1983, while working for the employer as a heavy equipment operator. He was eventually diagnosed as suffering from marked degeneration of the L5-S1 disc, with calcification and bilateral lateral stenosis associated with spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. The employer and insurer paid the employee various workers' compensation benefits, including benefits for a 17.5% permanent partial disability to close out permanency to the extent of 20% of the back.          The employee underwent spinal fusion surgery, at L5-S1, in September of 1986. On May 11, 1987, his treating doctor, Dr. Thomas V. Rieser, noted that the employee was doing quite well but should be restricted from lifting more than thirty pounds on a repetitive basis, carrying more than thirty pounds on a repetitive basis, sitting more than six hours, standing more than four hours per day, and walking more than four hours per day, with only occasional bending and squatting. He also opined that the employee could not return to the work he was doing before the injury. The employee apparently returned to work on November 8, 1987.1           On March 31, 1988, the employee filed a claim petition, seeking benefits for an additional 10% permanency of the...

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