 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Saline Crushing And Excavating9/21/2005
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Allen Williams appeals from the denial of workers' compensation benefits, arguing that the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission) erred in finding that he failed to prove a causal relationship between his compensable back injury and surgeries performed on his L5-S1 lumbar disc in January 2003. We affirm the Commission's order.
Appellant sustained a compensable injury on February 8, 1999, in the course of his employment with appellee, Saline Crushing and Excavation. While digging with a shovel, appellant pushed the shovel with his right foot and struck a root, which caused him to spin around and fall to the ground. He complained of back pain and numbness in his right leg. Appellant's initial treating physician, Dr. James Cooper, a neurologist, ordered an MRI, which revealed mild bulging in the L4-5 and L5-S1 lumbar discs. The MRI indicated that the bulge in the L4-5 disc was affecting the thecal sac and that there was narrowing of the neural foramina bilaterally. The MRI revealed a contrary finding that the herniation at the L5-S1 level was not impinging on the nerve root.
Dr. Cooper referred appellant to Dr. Robert Dickins, a neurosurgeon. After examining appellant and reviewing his MRI scan, Dr. Dickins concluded that appellant had herniation at the L4-5 and L5-S1 levels. Dr. Dickins further concluded that the herniation at the L4-5 level corresponded with appellant's symptoms, but did not warrant surgery. After medication and physical therapy failed to produce relief, Dr. Dickins ordered a lumbar myelogram and post-myelogram CT scan, which were performed on May 14, 1999. The myelogram revealed a herniation with an extruded disc fragment at L4-5 on the left, for which surgery was recommended. With regard to the L5-S1 disc, the myelogram revealed that, " he thecal sac terminates just below the L5-S1 disc interspace and there are conjoined nerve roots at L5 and S1 bilaterally." However, the post-myelogram CT scan showed no significant abnormality at the L5-S1 level.
Appellee admitted the compensability of appellant's February 1999 injury . On June 29, 1999, Dr. Dickins performed a left lumbar laminectomy on appellant's L4-5 disc. Following this surgery, due to appellant's continued complaints of persistent right leg pain and numbness, Dr. Dickins ordered an MRI, conducted on November 9, 1999, which revealed mild scarring at the L4-5 area, but showed no abnormalities in the remainder of appellant's lumbar discs. Dr. Dickins concluded that the MRI revealed no evidence of disc herniation that would correlate with appellant's right leg pain.
Appellant was next examined by another neurosurgeon, Dr. Jim Moore, who recommended a nerve conduction study and a TENS unit. Dr. Dickins subsequently opined that appellant's right leg pain was due to thrombophlebitis. He further stated: "I cannot exclude nerve root compression as contributing to this. However . . . 3 imaging studies over the period of time since I have seen him have failed to show a significant nerve compression on the right side." The presence of a visible thrombus in appellant's right leg was confirmed by a subsequent ultrasound.
On March 9, 2000, Dr. Dickins ordered another myelogram, stating that he suspected appellant's right leg pain was primarily due to thrombophlebitis. This myelogram revealed the L3-4 disc was "diffusely prominent and effaces the right anterior surface of the thecal sac" and was "crowding of the nerve roots" at that level. Despite these findings, Dr. Dickins opined that surgery at the L3-4 level would provide a limited benefit for appellant in terms of pain reduction; he again opined that the "predominant" cause of ap
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Arkansas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|