 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Burtell v. State Compensation Insurnace Fund3/18/2002
the next therapy session, scheduled for March 17, "secondary to her car not starting." (Id. at 159.) She "failed to show" for an appointment scheduled for March 19, 1992. (Id. at 160.) There is no record of any further therapy on this referral.
An FCE was performed on April 9, 1992, by Joseph Cullen, a Physical Therapist at St. Peter's Hospital. (Ex. 9 at 137-154.) Although he concluded the exam was valid, Cullen noted symptom exaggeration and observed that claimant seemed unable to distinguish between exertion and pain. (Id. at 137-38, 146.) He concluded claimant was able to work in sedentary or light occupations. (Id. at 150.)
On April 30, 1992, Dr. Weinert examined claimant and concluded that she has reached maximum medical improvement. I discussed with Jody consideration of further work conditioning or an organized program for the low back and at this point, she does not feel that she would benefit significantly from this. I concur with her. (Ex. 8 at 133.)
He rated her impairment at 8% of the whole person and approved claimant for sedentary to light-duty work. (Id. at 133-34.) He specifically approved job analyses for desk clerk (Ex. 7 at 119), casino cashier (id. at 122), house parent (id. at 124), and customer service representative (id. at 126). Lordemann found that claimant had the necessary skills and abilities to perform those jobs. (Id. at 114.)
The State Fund paid claimant for her impairment rating on June 5, 1992. (Ex. 4 at 45-47.)
On November 25, 1992, a Rehabilitation Panel of the Department of Labor and Industry entered a final determination finding that claimant could return to work in a related occupation for which she was suited by education and marketable skills. This was "option (c)" under the rehabilitation options in effect at the time of claimant's injury, ยง 39-71-1012, MCA (1989). Alternative jobs noted by the Panel in its original report as available to the claimant were customer service representative, house parent, desk clerk, and casino cashier. (Ex. 3 at 13.)
Following the Panel determination, on December 12, 1992, the State Fund gave claimant a 14-day notice that it was terminating her TTD benefits. (Ex. 4 at 50.) Two weeks later, it in fact terminated the benefits. (Ex. 5 at 85.)
Following termination of her benefits, claimant returned to Dr. Book on March 17, 1993, for back pain. (Ex. 20 at 221.) Claimant told Dr. Book she mostly sat at home and had not been to physical therapy in two years. (Id.) She said she was depressed, attributing this to the recent death of her father and to feeling unproductive at home.
Thereafter, evidently on the recommendation of Dr. Book, claimant returned to Dr. Hunter on April 16, 1993, complaining of constant back pain and depression. Dr. Hunter noted:
She came in today saying she wanted to set up surgery. I've explained to her that she meets none of the criteria, that she has no nerve root tension signs, no objective neurologic deficit. (She did have symmetric reflexes, no atrophy or fasiculations, etc. and no subjective weakness either). As risk factors is the extreme myofascial component of this. She does continue to smoke, although sounds like she is cutting back significantly. Talked about all of our options. She defers injections of any sort. I've explained that the only chance that she probably has is a functional restoration type program. She won't hear of being involved or getting engaged in her own care with physical therapy or with Dr. Weinert. (Ex. 17 at 202, emphasis added.)
On May 10, 1993, claimant saw Robert J. Bateen, Ph.D., a psychologist. (Ex. 2.) She complained of pain on a 24-hour b
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|