 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wilson v. Ace American Insurance Group6/7/2002
er stellate blocks, an interscalene block, and medication. (Ex. 3-1 to 3-8.) He noted improvement in her condition over that time.
Claimant returned to Dr. James C. Simmons on August 4, 2000, for follow-up of her RSD. She noted at that time that her condition was 50% improved; he recommended but she rejected resumption of the blocks. (Ex. 3-9.)
At Dr. Campbell's request, on May 25-26, 2000, Gary Lusin (Lusin), a physical therapist, did a functional capacities evaluation (FCE) of claimant. (Ex. 13.) The FCE showed that claimant could perform work "in the lower portion of the medium physical demand level" despite her pain complaints and self-limiting behavior. (Ex. 13-2, underlining in original.) Regarding claimant's cooperation during the examination, Lusin wrote:
Ms. Wilson was cooperative from the standpoint of participating in all tasks asked of her. She does demonstrate broad self-limiting pain behavior for nearly every task. The limitations identified through this testing represent her self-limitations rather than a safe maximum physical limit. (Ex. 13-2.)
Regarding claimant's performance during the FCE, he commented as follows:
There was a poor link between the physical problems identified in the musculoskeletal assessment and her actual functional performance. During musculoskeletal assessment she would allow no more than 85-90 of right shoulder flexion whether active or passive. During the FCE she easily took the right shoulder to 120-125 flexion without difficulty. There was poor correlation between her floor-to-waist lift and her repetitive squat. There was poor correlation between overhead lifting and overhead work testing. Horizontal lift did not correlate with two-handed carry. Her pull force was not greater than her push force which is inconsistent with her current right shoulder problem. Low level activities of crawling, kneeling, crouching, squatting, etc. were not consistent with limitations in the lower extremity and trunk. Her handgrip testing scores were not reflective of a bell curve indicating submaximal performance. Her responses on the Spinal Function Sort did not correlate with her FCE results. I had her complete two Spinal Function Sort questionnaires. One was for the right hand only and one was for the left hand only. The right hand score was 43 and the left hand scored was 79. On neither questionnaire did she indicate that she could do any of the 50 tasks without restriction and that was with both the left and the right. This strongly suggests that she has a poor perception of her pain and disability, and extends that perception to the left upper extremity. (Ex. 13-2, 13-3.)
Lusin concluded that claimant's "pain behavior" limited her performance in the evaluation. (Id.) Even with her limited performance, he approved job descriptions for Clerk/Cashier at Town Pump, Assistant Manager at Town Pump, and Manager at Town Pump. (Ex. 13-4.) His overall impression was:
This is an accurate description of Ms. Wilson's current level of function. The test results strongly suggest that Ms. Wilson does perceive herself to be much more limited and disabled by pain than her performance would indicate. This is not to say that Ms. Wilson is not experiencing pain in the right shoulder, low back, or right lower extremity, however, the test does not support that these pain complaints are significantly limiting her function. (Id.)
Dr. Campbell agreed with the FCE evaluation and found claimant at MMI on June 5, 2000. (Ex. 14-1; Campbell Dep. at 13.) He set her up for an impairment rating by Dr. John Vallin. (Campbell Dep. at 13.)
Dr. Vallin is a physiatrist. He examined claimant on June
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|