 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hamilton v. Gregory Trucking3/16/2005
ant was addicted to the drugs she was using.
The record amply demonstrates that appellant suffers from chronic pain related to the injury she sustained while working at Wal-Mart. There is no proof that appellant's condition does not warrant further treatment. To the contrary, each of the three physicians who independently examined appellant, at Wal-Mart's specific direction, recommended additional treatment for her chronic-pain condition.
Id. at ___, ___ S.W.3d at ___.
Here, there was proof that Hamilton's authorized physician and several successive physicians prescribed medications to relieve the pain associated with Hamilton's compensable injury , and there was no medical proof to support the Commission's finding that some of those medications should be stopped completely. The Commission cited no medical evidence or authority for concluding that Hamilton should feel nothing at all after taking certain dosages of Oxycontin and Roxicodone, or for assessing particular treatments as lacking acceptance within the general medical community. In concluding that Hamilton had not proven that particular prescriptive medications were reasonably necessary, the Commission ignored its own finding that he was substantially addicted to narcotics prescribed by his authorized treating physician and successors, and it overlooked its own order that Hamilton should be provided a new physician in the field of pain management for continued follow-up care or medical maintenance. While apparently denying Hamilton's claim because of his addiction to medications prescribed for his work-related condition, the Commission points to no evidence that any addiction to these medications is unrelated to the medical treatment he was receiving for his work-related injury.
We hold that fair-minded persons, if presented with the evidence before the Commission, could not have reached the conclusion that the medications prescribed by Hamilton's authorized treating physician and subsequently re-prescribed by other physicians were not reasonable and necessary. Thus, the Commission's decision displays no substantial basis for denying payment of expenses incurred for these prescribed medications over the time period at issue. This case is reversed and remanded for determination of the appropriate award of benefits for payment of expenses incurred for prescribed medications related to Hamilton's compensable injury .
Reversed and remanded.
Glover and Roaf, JJ., agree.
|