No. 00-91625 (2002). Gosnell v. Bandi's Welding and Steel Erection.

• Case Date: May 01, 2002
• Court: Kentucky

Kentucky Workers Compensation 2002. No. 00-91625 (2002). Gosnell v. Bandi's Welding and Steel Erection RANDALL GOSNELL PETITIONER vs. BANDI'S WELDING and STEEL ERECTION and HON. THOMAS A. NANNEY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RESPONDENTSOPINION ENTERED: May 1, 2002CLAIM NO. 00-91625APPEAL FROM HON. THOMAS A. NANNEY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE AFFIRMING * * * * * * * * * * * * BEFORE: LOVAN, Chairman, STANLEY and GARDNER, Members. LOVAN, Chairman. Randall Gosnell ("Gosnell") appeals from the decision of Hon. Thomas A. Nanney, Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"), finding he had a 7% impairment rating pursuant to the AMA Guides and thus finding a permanent partial disability rating in accordance with that impairment rating. Before the ALJ the only issue was extent and duration of occupational disability and, on appeal, Gosnell argues the ALJ erred in permitting the late filing of a medical report from Dr. Thomas Loeb on behalf of Bandi's Welding and Steel Erection ("Bandi") and further erred in relying upon Dr. Loeb's 7% impairment rather than Dr. Crawford's 25% impairment. Gosnell was injured March 3, 2000 while moving some heavy metal, which apparently caused a herniated cervical disk. After approximately six weeks of medical treatment, his problems appeared to resolve and he was released to return to work without restrictions. However, in February of 2001 he had a reoccurrence of symptomatology and again returned to Dr. Crawford. Gosnell advised there had been an onset of symptomatology without any triggering mechanism. His condition continued to worsen and specialized testing was performed which revealed a herniated cervical disk at C6/7 with nerve root impingement. Continued conservative treatment failed and Gosnell underwent a cervical diskectomy and fusion. The claim was placed in abeyance, temporary total disability benefits were instituted and upon reaching maximum medical improvement, the claim was removed from abeyance and proceeded to a decision on the merits. Apparently, after reaching maximum medical improvement, Dr. Crawford permitted Gosnell to return to work and believed he was capable of performing the same work that he did at the time of the injury. Dr. Crawford was introduced by way of medical records and reports. Upon Gosnell reaching maximum improvement, he assigned a 25% impairment rating based upon a DRE...