Friday, January 24, 2020

Commission rejects Fund liability on unpersuasive "boilerplate" expert opinion

Jeffrey Dudley v Chrysler 
Old Caro

Release Date:  1/14/2020 (Accident date July 10, 2008)

Venue:  St. Louis

Plot Summary:  Claimant alleges a back injury from assembly line work.  The ALJ awarded 15% disability in a 2018 hearing.   Claimant, 47, sought PTD benefits in both cases following a two level fusion. The ALJ found a two level fusion not related to the work injury.

https://labor.mo.gov/sites/labor/files/decisions_wc/DudleyJeffrey08-12470401-14-20.pdf


Cast:
Denigan, ALJ
Mandel
Mirkin
Coyle
Polinsky

Comments:

"The record of evidence does not permit an award of PPD on the first case (2006) because of the failure of proof on medical causation. The second case (2008) finds substantial probative evidence in the record for an award of PPD reflecting the serious but unoperated, if not abandoned, pathology of 2008 in which the evidence demonstrates Claimant sustained a lifting injury during the period 2006 to 2008 at the truck plant which was diagnosed as a lumbar disc pathology at L4-5. While Dr. Coyle's medical causation was persuasive, his PPD opinions were difficult to understand. Rather, Claimant's medical diagnosis together with clinical presentation warranting Dr. Mirkin's discussion of a surgery form the basis of 15 percent PPD."

The Commission finds a 15% disability associated with a new L4-5 disc herniation injury by occupational disease and a two level fusion reasonably necessary even though one of the levels was not found to be compensable.  

The Commission found Dr. Volarich's opinion about synergy was not persuasive, boilerplate, nor was his allocation persuasive   "because Dr. Volarich did not explain his equal rating for employee's L4-5 disc herniation, which was treated by a fusion in 2010; employee's 2003 L5-S1 disc herniation, which was treated by surgery; and employee's 2006 recurrent L5-S1 disc herniation, which was treated by injections. Dr. Volarich also appeared to confuse what treatment each injury required by stating that the 2006 recurrent disc herniation required a discectomy, when in fact it only required injections

What's it worth?
15% PPD