Olaguez v. Hydroblend, Inc., 062119 IDWC, IC 2016-024971

• Case Date: June 21, 2019
• Court: Idaho

EFRAIN OLAGUEZ, Claimant, v. HYDROBLEND, INC., Employer, and ALASKA NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., Surety, Defendants. No. IC 2016-024971 Idaho Workers Compensation Before The Industrial Commission Of The State Of Idaho June 21, 2019           FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDATION           Thomas P. Baskin, Chairman.          INTRODUCTION          Pursuant to Idaho Code § 72-506, the Idaho Industrial Commission assigned the above-entitled matter to Referee Brian Harper, who conducted a hearing in Boise, Idaho, on June 5, 2019. Claimant represented himself pro se. Susan Veltman, of Boise, represented Hydroblend, Inc. (Employer), and Alaska National Insurance Co. (Surety), Defendants. A Spanish-language interpreter translated the proceedings for Claimant. Oral and documentary evidence was admitted. Post-hearing briefing was waived by the parties after extensive discussion and explanation of the briefing process, and instead both parties voluntarily elected to present oral closing arguments in lieu of written briefs. No post-hearing depositions were taken. The matter came under advisement on June 12, 2019.          ISSUES          The issues listed for resolution are:          1. Determination of the correct date of injury;          2. Whether the condition for which Claimant seeks benefits was caused by an industrial injury while working for Employer;          3. Whether and to what extent Claimant is entitled to the following benefits:

a. Medical care beyond that previously provided by Defendants;

b. Temporary partial and/or temporary total disability benefits (TPD/TTD);

c. Permanent partial impairment (PPI); and

d. Permanent partial disability in excess of impairment.

         CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES          Claimant’s position is that he sustained a back injury in 2014 while working for Employer. The claim was accepted and Claimant received treatment for this injury. By November 2014, after physical therapy, Claimant’s back was doing better and he was released without restrictions to return to his time-of-injury job. However, his back never felt right and continued to hurt, and he repeatedly complained to Employer of increasing pain. Claimant eventually sought additional treatment for his back pain in 2016. Claimant was not at fault in the accident and seeks additional treatment to reestablish his low back health.          Defendants argue Claimant suffered a work-related strain/contusion injury to his low back, for which all medical bills have been paid. Claimant reached MMI in November 2014. Claimant missed no work due to this injury. He was given no permanent partial impairment (PPI) rating, and was assigned no work restrictions when released from care. Over one year later Claimant complained of back pain and Employer paid for him to go to a physician for evaluation. An MRI showed degenerative changes, but was read as essentially “normal.” Claimant is not entitled to any additional benefits, as no doctor has indicated Claimant’s current low back complaints are related to his work injury.          EVIDENCE CONSIDERED          The record in this matter consists of the following:          1. Claimant’s testimony, taken at hearing;          2. Claimant’s Exhibits (CE) A and B, admitted at hearing; and          3. Defendants’ Exhibits (DE) 1 through 11, admitted at hearing.          FINDINGS OF FACT          1. Claimant was working for Employer in August 2014, and held a second job at Oxford Suites in Boise.          2. Claimant testified that on Monday, August 18, 2014, ^[1] while at work at Employer’s warehouse, he was injured by a co-worker, Mr. Herrera. Mr. Herrera grabbed Claimant’s shoulders from behind while Claimant was on his knees working, and kneed Claimant in the lower back. Claimant felt immediate pain from this incident. Claimant notified his superiors of the incident soon afterwards.          3. Claimant was...