 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sherwin v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board10/26/2005
Jamie L. Sherwin (Claimant) petitions for review of an adjudication of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that denied Claimant's petition to reinstate compensation benefits. In doing so, the Board affirmed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ), who had been directed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on remand to reconsider her decision in light of its holding in Daniels v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Tristate Transport), 574 Pa. 61, 828 A.2d 1043 (2003). Finding no merit to Claimant's argument that the WCJ's decision was not reasoned, in accordance with Daniels, or not supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
The background to the WCJ's remand decision is as follows. On January, 24, 1997, Claimant's left foot was squeezed and crushed between a transfer machine and stationary rollers while she was working as a material handler for Bradford Dimension Products (Employer). On September 24, 1997, Claimant returned to work for Employer in a clerical position at less than her time-of-injury earnings, entitling her to partial benefits of $11.50 per week. Claimant stopped working after three and one-half days because of the extent of the pain in her left foot.
On December 10, 1997, Claimant filed a reinstatement petition, alleging a total disability as of October 15, 1997, the date on which her treating physician, Robert M. Landfried, D.O., gave her a written excuse from work. On December 18, 1997, Employer filed a termination petition alleging that as of December 2, 1997, Claimant was fully recovered from her work-related injury and that Claimant refused to return to work at a modified-duty position. The WCJ conducted a hearing on both petitions.
Claimant presented the testimony of Dr. Landfried, a board-certified anesthesiologist specializing in pain management, who diagnosed Claimant with complex regional pain syndrome Type I (CRPS), which is also known as reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD). He explained that CRPS is a clinical term to describe pain of an extremity that cannot be explained by objective findings; it is a diagnosis made after all other possible causes, such as fracture, malignancy and nerve damage have been eliminated. Dr. Landfried testified that his diagnosis was based entirely upon Claimant's complaints because all pain is subjective. He opined that Claimant's CRPS was causally related to her work injury and rendered her unable to work.
Claimant also presented the deposition testimony of Michael Stanton-Hicks, M.B., B.S., who is board-certified in anesthesia in England and by the American Academy of Pain Medicine. He confirmed Dr. Landfried's diagnosis of CRPS. The findings of Jon Tucker, M.D., who did an independent medical examination (IME) of Claimant, were contrary, but Dr. Hicks explained that this can happen with CRPS because one day a patient may have symptoms and the next day she may not.
Claimant's testimony, taken by deposition, was that despite physical therapy, pain blocks, and hospitalization for pain management, she continues to experience burning and stinging pain; her foot feels cold and hot at the same time. She testified that the pain in her left foot made it difficult to sit or to concentrate on the task at hand; accordingly, she left the modified-duty position given to her by Employer. Claimant testified in person at the hearing on October 7, 1999, to identify and explain medical bills and other documents admitted into evidence.
Employer presented the deposition testimony of Jon Tucker, M.D., a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who examined Claimant on December 2, 1997. Dr. Tucker testified that x-rays and bone scans showed no fractures or soft tissue deran
Page 1 2 3 4 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|