 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Redman v. State6/5/2003
2003 Opinion No: 69
The decision of the Industrial Commission is affirmed.
Mabel E. Redman (Redman) asks the Court to reverse the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Industrial Commission, which concluded that she had suffered a total work impairment from several injuries prior to her 1997 accident and was thus not entitled to relief from the Industrial Special Indemnity Account.
I. BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS
Redman has been a store clerk since she was 16 years old. On October 5, 1985, while working at the U-Tel-Em market, she sustained a serious back injury when she tried to catch two bags of water softener salt as they fell off a cart. She was 56 years old at the time. Subsequent back pain kept her from work for several weeks. On October 7th and 10th she saw Dr. Martin McDonald who diagnosed her with acute muscle strain and prescribed aspirin and exercises. Still unable to return to work because of back pain, she saw Dr. Alan White on November 13th, who diagnosed her with thoracolumbar strain with resultant subluxation and associated radiculitis. He stated in his report to the Industrial Commission that she should undergo conservative chiropractic care and that her condition be watched. She eventually came under the care of Dr. Jon Dahlin, who stated in January of 1986 that she had "plateaued for the last two months and any time she increases her activities she has acute exacerbation of pain and has to lie down most of the following day." He also concluded that "it is doubtful that she will be able to return to this type of work in the near future." On January 22, Dr. Dahlin discovered she had spondylolytic spondylolisthesis grade I at L5-S1, which was a pre-existing lesion that may have predisposed her to the injury. He decided that she could "return to her work at a lighter type work capacity." In February of 1986 Redman told Dr. Dahlin she wanted to return to work, and he agreed stating she "can safely resume her previous employment." His final assessment in April was that she had "no permanent impairment" and that "no further active medical treatment or follow up anticipated." Later that month, Dr. Dahlin recommended that Redman get a lumbosacral support to wear on the job .
Redman entered into a lump sum agreement with U-Tel-Em that was approved by the Industrial Commission. Her medical costs of $2,360.16 were paid, and she received $3,057.95 in temporary disability compensation and $2,000 in consideration of her waiving all her claims.
Redman continued work at the U-Tel-Em market until 1987 when she hurt her back again while trying to load a bag of dog food into the back of a car. She came under the care of Dr. Gary Bills who believed she had lumbar spondylolysis of the L5 with minimal listhesis and recommended that she avoid bending or twisting her back. Apparently, U-Tel-Em market informed Dr. Bills that it did not have any work for Redman that did not involve bending or lifting, and Redman told Dr. Bills she could not do the work they asked of her because of her back. Dr. Bills concurred that Redman could not work and stated that she probably had a permanent impairment regarding her persistent lumbar pain. Dr. Bills reported to the Industrial Commission that Redman had a 10% impairment rating of the whole person-5% from the 1985 accident and another 5% from the 1987 accident-and that she could only perform work requiring lifting 15 pounds or less and that did not require bending the lumbar spine. Redman and U-Tel-Em entered into another lump sum agreement with the Industrial Commission in which she received $34,000 for discharge of U-Tel-Em's current and future liability.
After the second accident
Page 1 2 3 4 Idaho Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|