 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Caudle v. Hatfield Lumber Co.3/2/2005
body impairment, thus giving him a whole person impairment of 13%.
Again, Darrell is free to seek a second opinion, or as directed by his company. It is unfortunate that I have been unable to render him pain- free. However, his pain medication intake from my office alone is above and beyond the normal amount required for this type of knee problem, and it is my understanding that he has had pain medication from multiple alternative sources.
(Emphasis added.)
Appellant was granted a change-of-physician order from the Commission, and he was subsequently seen by Dr. Mulhollan, who opined in a letter dated December 10, 2002:
This patient is very difficult to assess. He is obese at 240 lbs on a 5'8" frame. He uses a cane. He declines to lie down, so he could not have Merchant skyline x-rays. The only film study we could obtain was a standing AP. The film is normal besides osteopenia of the right patella, which confirms the fact that he is weaker than he should be. I think it also confirms the fact that his extremity was injured.
An MRI report and an operative report were included in the data I reviewed.
The patient has a strength deficit in his right lower extremity. He should make every effort to correct that. Theoretically, strength restoration will cause resolution of his pain. It is impossible to project any sort of timetable for that. We coached him in exercises and fitted him with an electrical stimulator. He seems to nicely understand how to work it. We want to see him again in about a month to find out if he is using the device properly. Some consideration should be given to buying this device because it will probably be necessary for quite an interval.
There is a letter from Dr. Rudder dated September 16. In it, the patient's physical impairment is estimated. I think the numericals are reasonable ballpark figures. I do not think his status will change in the immediate future.
I am very pessimistic about his being rehabilitated to work, although it is conceivable that he will gradually improve with additional time.
I do not think he needs additional orthopedic care. It will not hurt him to see a pain management physician. Indeed, that may be the only remedy for his back pain. I do not think his back problem is surgical.
There are multiple references in this patient's medical records regarding his affection for narcotic analgesics. Since his pain syndrome is chronic, I think that type of medication is contraindicated. He was not given prescriptions while in this office.
Despite the fact that Dr. Mulhollan did not provide appellant with additional narcotic pain medication, it is evident from his medical records that he continued to receive such medication from other medical providers. Moreover, in a March 20, 2003 letter, Dr. Mulhollan reported that there was "very definite improvement in the ossification, indicating improved strength since he was last x-rayed." In short, the Commission's decision displays a substantial basis for the denial of additional temporary-total disability benefits, and its findings are supported by substantial evidence. We therefore affirm on this issue as well.
Affirmed.
Hart and Neal, JJ., agree.
|