 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Adams v. F. Schumacher and Co.11/1/2005
Submitted: September 7, 2005
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices.
ORDER
This 1st day of November 2005, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The employee-appellant, Linda Adams ("Claimant") appeals a judgment of the Superior Court upholding a decision of the Industrial Accident Board ("Board") in favor of employer-appellee, F. Schumacher and Co. Inc. ("Employer"). On November 6, 2003, the Board determined that Claimant sustained a 20% impairment to the cervical spine, but no permanent impairment to the lumbar spine or brain. The Claimant has filed this appeal challenging the Board's determination that Claimant suffered no permanent impairment to the brain. Claimant contends that the Board's decision was not supported by substantial credible evidence and that the Board erred by failing to recognize that in determining permanency ratings, physicians may employ a variety of methods. Because we find no merit in these arguments, we affirm.
(2) Claimant was injured in an industrial accident on January 23, 2001. Claimant slipped, fell, and injured her back while exiting her vehicle in parking lot of the Employer. Following the accident, Claimant began to experience chronic headaches. In addition, Claimant suffered from memory loss and dizziness. Claimant's daily activities and her ability to perform her duties at work were affected negatively by the headaches. Claimant sought permanent impairment benefits for 20% loss of use to the cervical spine, a 10% loss of use to the lumbar spine, a 7% loss of use to the left upper extremity, and a 10% loss of use to the brain. Claimant withdrew the request for permanent impairment benefits related to the left upper extremity.
(3) At the Board hearing, two medical experts testified, Dr. Stephen Rodgers and Dr. Alan Fink. Dr. Rodgers found 10% permanent impairment to the brain based on Claimant's medical records and examination of Claimant. In reaching his conclusion, Dr. Rodgers did not use the permanency rating of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment ("AMA Guides"). Dr. Rodgers explained that the AMA Guides offered "little guidance as to a numerical quantification of the severity of post-traumatic headaches suffered by [Claimant]." In establishing the permanency rating, Dr. Rodgers used his clinical judgment and referenced the AMA Pain Guides.
(4) Dr. Fink testified that Claimant did not have any permanent brain impairment. Dr. Fink based his opinion on the AMA Guides. Dr. Fink acknowledged that Claimant initially had some difficulty with her memory after the accident, but has improved. Dr. Fink noted that the Claimant was able to work full-time, take care of herself, and conduct her daily activities. Dr. Fink opined that Claimant's headaches were result of her excessive use of Excedrin and Tylenol and that if Claimant stopped taking the medicine, the symptoms would improve.
(5) Weighing the testimony of Dr. Rodgers, Dr. Fink, and the testimony of Claimant, the Board found that the Claimant had no permanent impairment to the brain. The Board found the testimony of Dr. Fink to be more persuasive than that of Dr. Rodgers. In reaching its conclusion, the Board noted that Dr. Rodgers' opinion "without any specific discussion as to what procedure or which table or charts were followed, does not give sufficient information from which can properly evaluate the reasonableness of the assessment."
(6) The standard of review for the legal conclusions of the Board is de novo. The Superior Court, as an appellate court, reviews the Board's factual findings t
Page 1 2 3 Delaware Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|