MICHELLE STROPE, Claimant,
v.
KOOTENAI MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Employer,
and
LIBERTY NORTHWEST INSURANCE CORPORATION, Surety, Defendants.
No. IC 2011-003968
Idaho Workers Compensation
Before the Industrial Commission of the State of Idaho
January 27, 2017
FURTHER ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR
REHEARING
Thomas
E. Limbaugh, Chairman.
Hearing
on this matter was held on December 1, 2015. The case was
decided on evidence adduced at hearing and via post-hearing
deposition as anticipated by J.R.P. 10. Referee Taylor
submitted proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Order, which were adopted by the Commission by Order dated
June 22, 2016. The Commission found, inter alia, that
Claimant failed to demonstrate entitlement to further medical
treatment related to the subject accident. In connection with
the so ruling, the Commission found that Dr. Dirks'
records and testimony were insufficient to demonstrate that
Claimant's time-of-hearing complaints were causally
related to the subject accident versus unrelated
conditions/events. Dr. Dirks' opinions were not based on
an understanding of Claimant's pre- and post-injury
medical history. He conceded that he could not render an
opinion on the relationship between Claimant's
time-of-hearing complaints and the subject accident without a
follow-up MRI evaluation.
Claimant
filed a timely motion for reconsideration pursuant to Idaho
Code § 72-718.
In
support of her motion Claimant argued that the Commission
either ignored or misapprehended certain evidence of record
in concluding that Claimant had failed to meet her burden of
proof. The Commission treated those arguments in its
September 9, 2016 Order on Motion for Reconsideration and/or
Rehearing, and will not revisit that discussion. However, in
further support of her motion for reconsideration, Claimant
alerted the Commission to the fact that the recommended
lumbar spine MRI was obtained on February 24, 2016. Along
with a copy of the radiologist's interpretation of that
study, Claimant provided the Commission with certain
additional medical records generated by Dr. Dirks, suggesting
that Dr. Dirks is of the view that the February 24, 2016 MRI
supports the conclusion that Claimant currently has a
lumbosacral spine condition that is responsible for her
ongoing complaints, that this lumbosacral spine condition is
the result of the subject accident, and that this condition
requires further medical/surgical treatment. The Commission
deemed this new evidence of sufficient importance to warrant
reopening the record for the purpose of allowing the parties
to adduce such medical evidence as they deemed necessary to
fully address the question of what the February 24, 2016 MRI
adds to answering the question of whether or not Claimant is
entitled to further medical care referable to the subject
accident. The parties were specifically cautioned that they
should not take the Commission's September 9, 2016 Order
as an invitation to ask the Commission to revisit previously
considered evidence or argument, much less as an invitation
to offer additional evidence which could have been timely
adduced at hearing. Following the Commission's September
9, 2016 Order Claimant submitted additional medical evidence
and argument on or about December 8, 2016. Defendants
submitted additional evidence and argument on the same date.
In
support of her motion for reconsideration, Claimant offered
exhibits A-B attached to the July 12, 2016 Affidavit of Starr
Kelso, as well as certain additional records attached to and
referenced in Claimant's December 8, 2016 submission as
Exhibits 1 through 17. The Commission admits into evidence
Exhibit B to counsel's affidavit, and Exhibits 1, 2, and
10 to counsel's December 8, 2016 filing. As developed in
more detail infra, the balance of the documents
offered by Claimant are not admitted.
As part
of its December 8, 2016 filing, Defendants submitted
Defendants' Exhibits 1 through 3. Defendants' Exhibit
1 is a November 1, 2016 letter authored by Jeffrey Larson,
M.D. Defendants' Exhibit 2 consists of records generated
by Brett Dirks, M.D. since the December 1, 2015 hearing. This
Exhibit includes the radiologist's interpretation of the
MRI of February 24, 2016. Defendants' Exhibit 3 is a copy
of Claimant's request for calendaring dated March 26,
2015. The Commission admits Defendants' Exhibits 1-2 into
evidence.
In
connection with the numerous exhibits offered by Claimant
which the Commission has declined to admit, many consist of
evidence that could have been adduced at the original
hearing, and are therefore inadmissible at this time pursuant
to J.R.P. 10. Other of the Exhibits (notably those generated
in connection with obtaining Dr. Seely's response) are
irrelevant to the one issue before the Commission. While the
Commission has admitted Dr. Seely's November 16, 2016
response to Counsel's inquiries that response is not
particularly informative, because it does nothing to disclose
the foundation for Dr. Seely's opinion that the need for
the February 24, 2016 MRI is causally related to the subject
accident. The response does not reveal what medical records
Dr. Seely reviewed in arriving at this opinion. The evidence
of record does not reflect that Dr. Seely possessed or
reviewed the records of other providers generated in
connection with Claimant's back injury. How he came to
the conclusion that the need for the MRI is related to the
original accident is unclear. However, Dr. Seely's
original recommendation for the study is found in his chart
note of September 28, 2011, and we surmise that since
Claimant had recent L5-S1 surgery (June 2011) Dr. Seely
concluded that further work-up was reasonably related to that
procedure.
Most of
the other exhibits are offered to discredit the opinions of
Dr. Larson. Claimant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of
the Commission...
