 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Benfield v. Wal-Mart Stores9/5/2001
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
AFFIRMED
Wanda Benfield appeals from a Workers' Compensation Commission's order finding that she was not entitled to additional temporary total disability benefits and that she failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that disk-fusion surgery was reasonable and necessary medical treatment. We affirm.
Benfield, while working for Wal-Mart in night receiving, suffered a compensable injury to her low back on January 27, 1998, when she pushed down on a pallet. After she failed to respond to three months of conservative treatment, Dr. Phillip Johnson performed a lumbar laminectomy at L5-S1 left with discectomy. Following the surgery, Benfield complained of muscle spasms and persistent pain in her back and legs. Dr. Johnson performed an MRI that revealed the build-up of scar tissue. Dr. Johnson referred Benfield to a pain clinic, but she reported that her pain was not alleviated by the treatment. On November 11, 1998, Dr. Johnson opined that, despite his efforts with conservative treatment, "the claimant was going to need surgery." Dr. Johnson referred Benfield to a doctor for his recommendation and opinion, but Wal-Mart refused that referral and referred Benfield to Dr. Wayne Bruffett.
Dr. Bruffett's initial report was not introduced into evidence, but according to Dr. Johnson's December 9, 1998, clinical note, Dr. Bruffett recommended Benfield take non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication and physical therapy. Benfield saw Dr. Bruffett again on January 6, 1999, when Dr. Bruffett diagnosed Benfield with "failed spinal surgical syndrome with persistent low back pain" and stated that "she has again reached maximum medical improvement" and "may have some degree of impairment based on her pain." He recommended Benfield undergo therapy to strengthen her abdomen and back , undergo a functional capacity evaluation and then "find a job that meets these limitations." The recommended functional capacity evaluation found Benfield capable of work within the sedentary category according to U.S. Department of Labor Standards.
On January 13, 1999, Benfield was referred to Dr. Bruce Safman, who assigned Benfield a ten-percent disability rating pursuant to the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment and restricted her from lifting over fifteen pounds with no repetitive lifting or twisting. Dr. Safman's May 10, 1999, letter to the respondent-carrier stated, "I was not convinced that she was having a great deal of pain at the time of her examination." Wal-Mart accepted and paid Benfield benefits pursuant to Dr. Safman's rating. By agreement of the parties, the Commission ordered Benfield to undergo an independent medical evaluation by Dr. Jim Moore, who concluded that Benfield would not likely benefit from additional surgery, that her healing period had ended, and that she sustained permanent impairment in accordance with her previous ten-percent rating.
At the April 26, 2000, hearing before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Benfield claimed that the surgical fusion recommended by Dr. Johnson was reasonable and necessary, that she was entitled to temporary total disability (TTD) benefits, and that she was entitled to an automatic change of physician to Dr. Johnson. Wal-Mart controverted all of her claims.
At the hearing, Benfield testified that she was in constant pain, and she acknowledged that Dr. Johnson advised her that there was only a fifty-fifty chance that the proposed surgical procedure would relieve some of her pain. She also stated that Wal-Mart had offered her a job as a "greeter" but testified that she could not perform the job because she could not drive, she was "drunk" from her m
Page 1 2 3 Arkansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|