 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Vasquez v. Cardozo6/14/1994
MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM
Rene Vasquez appeals a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission. Vasquez contends that the commission erred in (1) finding that his vision and hearing loss were not causally related to his June 21, 1991, compensable accident; (2) finding that he was not totally disabled from June 21, 1991, to present; (3) finding that his request for vocational rehabilitation was premature; (4) denying his request for a change in treating physicians; (5) denying him a fair hearing because he was represented by an attorney who also represented the employer; and (6) denying his motion to reopen or remand the case based upon newly-discovered evidence. On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision. See Rule 5A:27.
I. and II. Causation and Disability
On June 21, 1991, Vasquez was injured when a high voltage cable struck a cart that he was pushing. He sustained electrical burns to his hands and feet. His employer, Oscar Cardozo, accepted the injuries as compensable.
Immediately after his injury, Vasquez was treated by a plastic surgeon , Dr. Bruce M. Freedman. Dr. Freedman performed surgery on Vasquez's left foot on July 23, 1991. This surgery entailed the amputation of a portion of Vasquez's great toe. Dr. Freedman's post-operative diagnosis included electrical burns to the left great toe and the right toes.
Vasquez continued treatment with Dr. Freedman during August, September, and December 1991. Dr. Freedman's office notes for this time period reflect that all of Vasquez's complaints concerned his toe and foot conditions. On September 17, 1991, Dr. Freedman noted that Vasquez was walking with no difficulty and returned him to full duty, provided he wore a solid boot while working. On September 19, 1991, Vasquez returned to Dr. Freedman stating that he had tried to work, but that his foot was still tender. Dr. Freedman excused Vasquez from work for four weeks. On October 22, 1991, Dr. Freedman noted that Vasquez's foot was healed, and he encouraged Vasquez to obtain a foam pad to place inside his boot so that he could return to work. Dr. Freedman gave no other opinion regarding disability at that time. Vasquez did not return to Dr. Freedman until December 9, 1991. At that time, Dr. Freedman opined that Vasquez had reached maximum medical improvement and released Vasquez from his care. In a December 16, 1991, letter to the employer's representative, Dr. Freedman opined that Vasquez was able to return to work without restriction.
Vasquez did not seek medical treatment again until June 5, 1992, when he returned to Dr. Freedman complaining of pain in his foot and, for the first time, complaining of intermittent dizziness, tingling of his extremities, headaches, occasional nightmares, and discomfort in his lower back. Vasquez denied changes in his vision, hearing, taste, or memory. He also denied having any pain in his neck or legs. Dr. Freedman noted that Vasquez's hearing was normal. Dr. Freedman gave Vasquez certain permanent partial disability ratings and opined that Vasquez would not require any future surgery. Dr. Freedman also stated that there was no known treatment for Vasquez's central nervous system complaints as they were non-focal and generalized.
On July 6, 1992, Vasquez was examined by Dr. Jammes. Vasquez's attorney arranged the appointment. Vasquez complaine
Page 1 2 3 Virginia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|