 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Worker's Compensation of Pohl5/25/1999
Appeal from the District Court of Albany County: The Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge
*Chief Justice at time of oral argument; retired November 2, 1998.
Cheryl L. Pohl (Pohl) claims that the Worker 's Compensation Medical Commission was without jurisdiction to hear her claim because she was injured prior to the date the Medical Commission came into effect. Because the legislature has clearly announced its intent that the Medical Commission hear all medically contested cases regardless of the date of the injury, we reject this contention. Further, we conclude the Worker 's Compensation Division acted in accordance with the law when it employed a case review physician to review Pohl's disputed impairment ratings.
We affirm.
ISSUES
Appellant Pohl presents two issues for our review:
1. Whether the Worker 's Compensation Division (Division) erred in determining the Office of the Medical Commission, Division of Workers' Safety and Compensation (Commission) had subject matter jurisdiction when the injury at issue occurred in 1992, the Act creating the Commission (Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-616 [Supp. 1994] [the Act]) was not passed until 1994, and this Court has previously determined the Act does not apply retroactively.
2. Whether, as a matter of law, the Division violated the statutory requirement in Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-405(e) (Supp. 1986) now (m) (1997), (as amended), which mandates the procedure to be followed by the Division in its determination of an award of permanent partial disability when the percentage of physical impairment is disputed.
Appellee, State, ex rel., Workers' Safety and Compensation Division (Division) states the issues in this manner:
"The Division denied the Employee's application to modify her permanent physical impairment award. The Workers' Compensation Medical Commission found she failed to prove an increase in incapacity due solely to her injury."
"A. The Employee raised her legal arguments for the first time on appeal. Should the court summarily affirm?"
"B. Was the retroactive application of the Medical Commission's enabling legislation in accordance with law?"
"C. Did the Medical Commission violate the Act by considering all of the Employee's conflicting impairment ratings?"
FACTS
Pohl suffered a work-related back injury on July 22, 1992, when she reached for a clipboard and experienced pain on the left side of her lower back. She reported the incident to her employer but continued working. On September 30, 1992, Pohl experienced an increase in her lower back pain, which included pain radiating into her left buttock. A few days later, Pohl went to an emergency room, where she was diagnosed with an acute lumbar strain and a herniated lumbar disc with radiculopathy (disease of the spinal nerve roots).
Pohl originally followed a non-surgical course of treatment, but she continued to suffer pain. Another examination in February of 1993 confirmed disc degeneration and inflammation between lumbar vertebrae 4 and 5. In June of 1993, Pohl underwent spinal fusion surgery. After this surgery and recuperation, Pohl accepted a 20 percent permanent partial impairment award.
Pohl moved to Oregon in 1995 and continued to receive therapy and treatment. In June of 1995, Pohl requested an impairment rating from her Oregon physician. Although the physician told Pohl that "Oregon physicians don't do [impairment] ratings," the physician supplied a rating. Without including any explanation of how the rating was calculated, Pohl's physician concluded that Pohl's whole body impairment rating had i
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Wyoming Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|