 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Shields v. GNB Technologies9/27/2000
ny doctor or because of other related information.
As noted above, Shields's testimony and the medical records adequately linked in time her arm and shoulder problems to the onset of her carpal tunnel syndrome. The causal link between the carpal tunnel and Shields' other complaints has been established to a reasonable probability. Shields acknowledges in brief that a definitive determination has not yet been made that her arm and shoulder problems are work related and part of the carpal tunnel syndrome problems. Shields also notes that the orthopedic evaluation is essential to make this assessment.
The negative MRI in June 1998 and Dr. Rinderle's referral to the rheumatalogist occurred well after Dr. Ramey's referrals to the orthopedist in December 1997 and January 1998. Further, GNB's attempts to rely on Dr. Ramey's February 27, 1998 letter to the insurance case manager stating that it was his "opinion that the symptoms are not related to her carpal tunnel syndrome" is misplaced. Dr. Ramey went on to write:
However, she has stated to me in the past during office visitations, that she did have pain in the elbows and right shoulder region. I had recommended to her as early as December of last year, that she obtain a consultation with an orthopedic surgeon for these symptoms.
GNB's action in refusing to authorize the orthopedic evaluation stymied Shields' efforts to have evaluated the problems which arose at about the same time as her carpal tunnel syndrome and which she consistently reported to her medical care providers. Shields provided medical records which corroborated her own testimony. Taking the record as a whole, GNB's refusal to authorize the orthopedic referral was not reasonably controverted by competent medical evidence. Although the WCJ incorrectly referred to GNB's actions as arbitrary and capricious (the standard under 23:1201.2) in oral reasons, the WCJ also correctly found that the refusal was not based upon contrary evidence; i.e, reasonably controverted by factual or medical information. Appeals are taken from judgments, not reasons for judgment. Dufour v. Horton, 609 So. 2d 1109 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1992). The WCJ was not manifestly erroneous in the imposition of penalties and attorney fees under La. R.S. 23:1201.
In an answer to the appeal, claimant sought an increase in attorney's fees. We conclude that the claimant is entitled to a $500 increase in attorney fees attributable to the employer's appeal.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the judgment is amended to award an additional $500 in attorney's fees for the appeal and is otherwise affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to GNB
AMENDED AND, AS AMENDED, AFFIRMED.
|