 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Willcutt5/19/1999
Judicial Review from Workers' Compensation Board.
Argued and submitted February 6, 1998.
Affirmed.
*Deits, C.J., vice, Warren, P.J., retired.
SAIF petitions for judicial review of a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found that the condition for which claimant had sought treatment was a compensable consequence of a 1974 work-related back injury. We review for errors of law and substantial evidence and affirm. ORS 183.482(8)(a), (c).
Claimant first injured his back in 1974 when, while working as a machinist for the Boeing Company in Portland, he fell against a workbench. As a result of that injury, claimant was awarded permanent total disability in May 1977. Since the injury, claimant has complained of chronic back pain. Attempts to alleviate the pain have included multiple back surgeries, physical therapy, and the prescription of narcotic analgesics.
At some time in the late 1980s, claimant began receiving intramuscular injections of Demerol and Phenergen to help relieve his pain symptoms. In October 1994, claimant suffered nerve damage as a result of one of the injections. The nerve damage caused numbness and weakness in his right leg, which continued to plague him long after the injection. A consequence of that damage was that claimant often would not know if he had properly placed his right foot when taking a step. In February 1996, claimant was walking on his driveway when he fell and hit his head and shoulder. He attributed the fall to the right leg numbness and weakness. Immediately after the fall, claimant developed severe neck pain on his right side and right upper extremity pain.
Claimant's family physician, Dr. James, examined claimant on February 13, 1996. An x-ray taken at that time revealed what James described as "an unusual appearance of the cervical spine with straightening except between C5-6 where he has a definite angulated area and narrowed disc space. Suspect he may have had a ruptured disc." James arranged for claimant to undergo a cervical MRI, which was performed on February 16, 1996. The MRI revealed "disc space narrowing at C4-5, C5-6 and C6-7, with associated degenerative spondylosis and osseous foraminal stenosis on the right at C4-5 and to a lesser degree at C5-6." In other words, the MRI disclosed that claimant suffered from a degenerative condition that, among other things, had caused bone spurs to form and narrow the central passage in the spine through which the spinal cord passed. The MRI did not reveal any evidence of a herniated disc. James referred claimant to Dr. Grewe, who had treated claimant in the past for lower back pain.
Grewe examined claimant on February 26, 1996. His records of the examination include the following impressions:
"1. Acute cervical nerve root compression C4-5 and C5-6, right, secondary to a fall, which was secondary to his right leg giving way during the first part of February, 1996. "2. Pre-existing spondylosis changes C4-5, C5-6 and C6-7."
Grewe then stated that he would request authorization for an anterior discectomy and interbody fusion, along with nerve root decompression, if claimant's symptoms did not abate. On March 25, 1996, Grewe operated on claimant, removing an acute herniated disc at C5-6 and C4-5 on the right. Grewe also removed osteophytes at the C5-6 and C4-5 levels.
On May 20, 1996, SAIF denied claimant's request for treatment and disability related to the surgery, stating that claimant's 1974 compensable injury was
"not the major contributing cause of your cervical nerve root compression, acute C4-5, C5-6 and osteophyte formation associated with spondylosis change
Page 1 2 3 4 Oregon Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|