No. 80794185 (1999). EMPLOYEE: Ruthie L. Robinson.
Case Date | June 24, 1999 |
Court | Massachusetts |
Massachusetts Workers Compensation
1999.
No. 80794185 (1999).
EMPLOYEE: Ruthie L. Robinson
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS EMPLOYEE: Ruthie L. Robinson EMPLOYER: General
Motors Corporation INSURER: General Motors CorporationBOARD NO. 80794185REVIEWING BOARD DECISION (Judges Smith, Wilson and McCarthy)APPEARANCES
Joseph P. Franzese, Esq., for the employee
Robert P. Jachowitz, Esq., for the self-insurer
SMITH, J. The employee appeals the
decision of an administrative judge denying her claim for § 36 specific
compensation for permanent impairment and § 30 medical benefits. The
employee contends that the decision is arbitrary and capricious, and contrary
to law, because the judge adopted both the decision in a prior proceeding and
the § 11A impartial medical examiner's report on which that decision was
based, and was biased against the employee's current medical expert. The case
presents the perplexing administrative law question of whether an
administrative judge in the Department of Industrial Accidents may rely on
either the reputation of, or his prior experience with, a familiar expert
witness. We vacate the finding about the doctor's reputation and recommit the
case for further findings of fact regarding the expert's opinion.
Ruthie L. Robinson received a personal injury to her lower back
on August 18, 1985. The injury arose out of and in the course of her employment
on the General Motors assembly line. The self-insurer accepted liability and
paid temporary total incapacity benefits until their exhaustion in July 1990.
(Dec. 2-3.) Because of her date of injury, she was only entitled to continuing
weekly compensation if she could prove that the injury rendered her totally and
permanently incapacitated. See G. L. c. 152, § 35, as amended by St. 1981,
c. 572, § 2 (For this date of injury, there is an aggregate dollar maximum
of $85,266 which is exhausted by payment of either § 34 or § 35
benefits, or any combination of both).
Robinson filed a claim for permanent and total incapacity. Dr.
James Bono was appointed as the § 11A impartial medical examiner on the
claim. Dr. Bono reported that he could not find any orthopedic reason why
Robinson could not return to her heavy duty work on the automobile assembly
line, that she was partially disabled due to subjective complaints that did not
correlate with objective findings, and that she was capable of returning to
part-time sedentary employment. (Judicial Notice # 1, Decision filed May 16,
1995, at 6.) The judge adopted Dr. Bono's opinion and therefore denied the
§ 34A claim. (Judicial Notice # 1 at 7.)
Within months of that decision, Robinson switched doctors and, in
September 1995, began treating with Dr. Emilio Jacques. (Dec. 6.) Thereafter,
relying on a report from her new doctor, Ruthie Robinson filed the current
claim for § 36 specific compensation for permanent impairment and §
30 medical bills. 1 The insurer filed a notification of denial, asserting that
"[a]ny permanent disfigurement, functional loss, and Section 13/30 not related
to original injury." (Insurer's Notification of Denial filed January 16, 1997.)
2 Despite the insurer's request to have the case assigned to the same judge who
had handled the § 34A claim, for administrative reasons, the new claim was
assigned to a different judge for conference. (Insurer Motion filed September
5, 1997; Letter from Senior Judge to Robert P. Jachowicz, dated September 9,
1997.) At conference before the new judge, the insurer identified "causal
relation of medical expenses and loss of function to industrial injury" as the
medical issues in dispute. (Conference Memorandum Cover Sheet, September 11,
1997.) After conference, the claim was denied and Robinson appealed to a
hearing de novo.
At the hearing, the insurer maintained its defense of no
causation. (Dec. 2, 4; Insurer Ex. 1.) Despite the mandatory provisions of G.L.
c. 152, § 11A, the judge allowed the parties to forego a § 11A
impartial medical report and present their own medical evidence. 3 (Dec. 2.)
The employee presented the opinion of her new doctor, Dr. Emilio Jacques, that
she was unable to return to her prior work, needed ongoing medical care, and
had a 20% permanent impairment according to the AMA Guidelines for Permanent
Impairment due to chronic lower extremity radiculopathy and chronic pain
syndrome caused by her industrial accident. (Employee Ex. 2.) She also
presented a 1986 EMG report of lumbar radiculopathy affecting primarily the L4
and L5 roots, with mild ongoing denervation, (Employee Ex. 3), and a 1990 MRI
report of a tiny central and slightly right-sided disc herniation that did not
come in contact with the anterior aspect of the thecal sac at L4-5, and a
mild-moderate diffuse disc bulge at L5-S1 with associated posterior bony
ridging and a small central and right-sided disc herniation projecting towards
the region of the right lateral recess. (Employee Ex. 4.) 4 The insurer
presented 1990 reports of the employee's prior treating physician, releasing
her to work with no restrictions and opining that she had made a full recovery
without any residual effects or loss of function. (Ins. Exs. 2 5 and 3.)
In addition, the judge took judicial notice of the entire board
file. The earlier decision denying Robinson's § 34A claim, and the
exhibits to that decision, including the § 11A impartial medical report
and deposition prepared for that proceeding, the MRI and EMG reports, and the
June 27, 1990 report of the employee's then treating physician, became Judicial
Notice # 1 in the present case. (Dec. 1, 3.) Employee's counsel conceded at
oral argument that the parties were aware of the judicial notice; the employee
did not preserve an objection to it for appellate review. 6
In his decision, the new judge adopted...
To continue reading
Request your trial