 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Scheidemantle v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board6/2/2003
Ronald Scheidemantle (Petitioner) petitions pro se for review of the August 9, 2002 order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that affirmed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) which denied Petitioner's Utilization Review Petition and found that the employer had sustained its burden to establish that Petitioner's medical treatment was unreasonable and unnecessary and was causally unrelated to the work injury. Petitioner questions whether the WCJ's decision and findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the decision of the WCJ constitutes a reasoned decision as required by Section 422(A) of the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act (Act).
While at Aristech Chemical on September 12, 1990, Petitioner inhaled malic anhydrine, which burned his nostrils and resulted in a chemical sensitivity causing him headaches, joint aches, difficulties sleeping and loss of taste and smell. He received compensation benefits pursuant to a March 28, 1991 notice of compensation payable (NCP). On February 28, 2000, Triple R. Transportation (Employer) filed a Utilization Review (UR) Request to evaluate the reasonableness and necessity of all treatments including but not limited to intravenous detoxification. On July 21, 2000, the UR Organization (URO) determined that the treatment provided by Dr. Roy E. Kerry, Petitioner's treating otolaryngologist and a fellow of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, was unnecessary and unreasonable. Petitioner filed a UR Petition on August 23, 2000.
At the hearing, Petitioner described his symptoms and his medical treatment, and he stated why he believed the treatment to be reasonable and necessary and causally related to his work injury. Petitioner presented reports from Dr. Ernest L. McKenna, Jr., an otolaryngologist, and from Dr. Allan Magaziner, an expert in environmental medicine, family practice and chelation therapy and a fellow of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine. Dr. McKenna was unable to conclusively determine whether the treatment was unreasonable or unnecessary, and Dr. Magaziner stated that the treatment was appropriate. Dr. Kerry concluded that Petitioner was subject to chemical sensitivity due to exposure to petro-chemical products, plastics, toluene, carbon tetrachloride and other agents and that he remained totally disabled from any occupation due to his sensitivity.
Employer's expert, Dr. Michael H. LeWitt, a specialist in occupational medicine, indicated that there was no scientific basis for Petitioner's treatment and concluded that it was unreasonable and unnecessary. Dr. Donald J. McGraw, an expert in occupational medicine, physical medicine and rehabilitation, performed an Independent Medical Evaluation and concluded that Dr. Kerry's treatment was both unreasonable and unnecessary as well as potentially detrimental to Petitioner's well-being because "multiple chemical sensitivities" is a non-recognized medical syndrome and numerous doctors in the American College of Allergic Diseases recommend against the treatment.
The WCJ found that Petitioner's work injury occurred nearly 11 years ago during which time Petitioner has not been employed or exposed to any of the work-injury agents or substances. Any symptoms experienced from Petitioner's prior exposure should have abated by virtue of a lack of exposure to the chemicals in the intervening years and lack of restrictions in his daily activities. Because Dr. Kerry placed no restrictions on Petitioner other than to state that he was unemployable, the WCJ found him not credible. Also Dr. McGraw noted Petitioner's prior tobacco use and found that his nostrils contained abnormalities consistent with nasal polypos
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|