Opinion
CLAIM NO. F509778
OPINION FILED MAY 13, 2008
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by the Honorable Jim R. Burton, Attorney at Law, Jonesboro, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by the Honorable William C. Frye, Attorney at Law, North Little Rock, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Reversed.
OPINION AND ORDER
The respondents appeal an administrative law judge's opinion filed April 19, 2007. The administrative law judge found that a "provocative discography" recommended by Dr. Hart was reasonably necessary in connection with the compensable injury. After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission reverses the opinion of the administrative law judge. The Full Commission finds that the claimant did not prove that Dr. Hart's treatment was reasonably necessary.
I. HISTORY
The parties stipulated that Kenny Wayne Baty, age 50, sustained a low back injury on August 11, 2005. Mr. Baty testified that he felt a pop in his back while lifting a heavy roll of fence. An MRI of the claimant's lumbar spine was taken on September 1, 2005, with the following impression: "Mild degenerative disc disease L4-5 and L5-S1 and moderate degenerative disc disease L3-4. Mild left posterolateral and right posterolateral disc herniation L3-4 and L4-5 causing mild narrowing of the neural foramina bilaterally at these two levels. Do not see any nerve root compression from these lesions."
Dr. Wayne L. Bruffett, a spinal surgeon, saw the claimant on January 13, 2006 and gave the impression, "Bulging disc and degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine with low back pain and right leg pain."
Dr. Bruffett arranged a lumbar myelogram, which was done on February 13, 2006, with the impression, "Slight foreshortening of the L5 roots bilaterally, but this may not be of significance. Otherwise, unremarkable exam with no definite nerve root herniation or spinal stenosis. CT scan is scheduled follow." A CT of the lumbar spine was done on February 13, 2006: "1. Bony spurring anteriorly and to the right at L3-4, consistent with degenerative disk disease. 2. No evidence of focal disk herniation. 3. No evidence of spinal stenosis or foraminal stenosis."
The claimant followed up with Dr. Bruffett on March 6, 2006:
His myelogram and post myelogram CT were reviewed. He has degenerative changes, but I do not see any evidence of high grade stenosis or nerve impingement. There is no evidence of any nerve compression.
IMPRESSION:
Bulging disc with degenerative disc disease.
DISCUSSION:
I told Mr. Baty that I do not see a surgical problem in his spine. I think nonsurgical things have been exhausted. He agrees with this. I would say that he is at a point of MMI.
To determine his capabilities, as far as returning to work, I would recommend an FCE for objective data. . . .I will see him back once this is completed.
The following conclusions resulted from a Functional Capacity Evaluation done on March 20, 2006: "Mr. Kenny Baty underwent functional evaluation this date with unreliable results. Overall, Mr. Baty demonstrates the ability to work at least at the Sedentary work level over the course of an 8 hour workday. Due to the unreliable nature of Mr. Baty's FCE, his true functional abilities remain unknown."
Dr. Bruffett's impression on April 7, 2006 was "Low back pain with work injury with invalid FCE. . . .I am going to release him back to work on Monday with no restrictions. I really do not see an objective injury here to assign a specific impairment rating. Therefore, I do not think he has a rateable injury. . . .I am going to see him back as needed."
The parties stipulated that temporary total disability benefits were paid through April 9, 2006.
Dr. Patrick Chan, a neurosurgeon, saw the claimant on May 3, 2006 and diagnosed "persistent low back pain and right leg pain, not better. . . .Need new MRI lumbar spine. May need L34 L45 L5S1 discogram/nucleoplasty." The claimant testified that Dr. Chan administered two injections, but that the injections provided no relief.
The parties stipulated that a Change of Physician Order was entered by the Commission on June 12, 2006, designating Dr. Thomas Hart as the claimant's authorized treating physician.
The claimant began treating with Dr. Thomas M. Hart, a pain consultant, on July 10, 2006. Dr. Hart opined that the claimant was "an appropriate candidate for provocative discography at the 2-3 (control level), 3-4, 4-5 (suspect levels), 5-S1 possible control level."
Dr. Bruffett corresponded on August 30, 2006:
Mr. Baty underwent a functional capacity evaluation on March 20, 2006, which showed that he gave unreliable effort with 21 of 44 consistency measures within expected limits. Therefore, more than half the time, he gave an inconsistent effort with this testing. Therefore, his capabilities were unable to be adequately assessed.
I think this speaks volumes towards his response to treatment in the future. In reviewing Dr. Hart's note, he is recommending diskography. I use diskography quite a bit in my practice, but I feel the only reason to obtain this would be if we were going to make further treatment recommendations based on this. After a patient basically "fails" a functional capacity evaluation, I would say that the chances of having successful treatments and good outcomes is very limited at best.
Certainly, Mr. Baty is not a candidate for any spinal surgery based on the results of diskography. Also, I really do not feel that doing a percutaneous nucleoplasty or taking out part of a damaged disk would yield any significant improvement unless there is evidence of specific nerve compression from the disk. The myelogram has ruled that out. Therefore, I really do not feel that diskography is indicated or necessary, because I do not think it changes our treatments.
Dr. Hart stated on November 2, 2006, "I think the discography is the most appropriate study performed properly according to national standards. If this demonstrates intervertebral disc disruption confirmed with post CT imaging, take this information and get back with Dr. Wayne Bruffett, his orthopedic spina (sic) specialist. This is our current plan."
Dr. Hart performed discography on November 15, 2006.
A pre-hearing order was filed on January 30, 2007. The claimant contended that he sustained a compensable injury to his back. The respondents contended that all reasonably necessary medical treatment was paid through Dr. Hart's evaluation, which took place on July 10, 2006. The respondents contended that further medical was not reasonably necessary. The parties agreed to litigate the issues of "additional medical treatment and controverted attorney fees."
A hearing was held on March 16, 2007. The claimant testified that his back was painful and hurting and that "my hip gets to hurting, you know, if I walk too much and feels like my leg is heavy."
The administrative law judge found, among other things, that "The provocative discography recommended by Dr. Thomas M. Hart is a reasonably necessary medical procedure in connection with the treatment of the claimant's August 11, 2005, compensable injury, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a)."
The respondents appeal to the Full Commission.
II. ADJUDICATION
The employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such medical treatment as may be reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the employee. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a). The claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to additional medical treatment. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Brown, 82 Ark. App. 600, 120 S.W.3d 153 (2003). What constitutes reasonably necessary medical treatment is a question of fact. Dalton v. Allen Eng'g Co., 66 Ark. App. 201, 989 S.W.2d 543 (1999).
The administrative law judge found in the present matter, "The provocative discography recommended by Dr. Thomas M. Hart is a reasonably necessary medical procedure in connection with the treatment of the claimant's August 11, 2005, compensable injury, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a)." The Full Commission reverses this finding. The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a low back injury. Dr. Bruffett, a spinal surgeon, reviewed an MRI taken after the injury and stated that the claimant had a bulging disc and degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. In February 2006, Dr. Bruffett arranged additional diagnostic testing in the form of a lumbar myelogram and CT of the lumbar spine. Dr. Bruffett's expert impression following this testing continued to be bulging disc with degenerative disc disease. Dr. Bruffett informed the claimant on March 6, 2006 that there was not a surgical problem and that the claimant was at maximum medical improvement.
The claimant was subsequently granted a Change of Physician to Dr. Hart, a pain consultant. The claimant presented to Dr. Hart on July 10, 2006 and this visit of course satisfied the respondents" initial obligation to the claimant pursuant to the change of physician statute. See, Brown, supra. Dr. Hart recommended "provocative discography" at several levels in the claimant's lumbar spine. On August 30, 2006, however, Dr. Bruffett opined that the claimant was not a candidate for spinal surgery, percutaneous nucleoplasty, or discography. Dr. Bruffett specifically stated, "I really do not feel that diskography is indicated or necessary, because I do not think it changes our treatments." Dr. Hart nevertheless performed discography on November 15, 2006, but the claimant testified that he still suffered from significant back pain and essentially considered himself to be disabled.
It is within the Commission's province to weigh all of the medical evidence and to determine what is most credible. Minnesota Mining Mfg. v. Baker, 337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999). The Full Commission in the present matter finds that Dr. Bruffett's opinion is more credible than the opinion of Dr. Hart. The Full Commission finds that the claimant did not prove that Dr. Hart's treatment was reasonably necessary in connection with the claimant's compensable injury. We therefore reverse the administrative law judge's finding that the claimant proved he was entitled to additional treatment from Dr. Hart after July 10, 2006.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________ OLAN W. REEVES, Chairman
______________________________ KAREN H. McKINNEY, Commissioner
DISSENTING OPINION
I must respectfully dissent from the majority's opinion. The majority, in reversing the Administrative Law Judge, finds that the claimant did not prove entitlement to additional reasonably necessary medical treatment from Dr. Hart, beyond his initial visit on July 10, 2006, specifically finding that the provocative discography recommended by Dr. Hart did not represent reasonably necessary medical treatment for the claimant's compensable lower back injury. Based upon a de novo review of the record in its entirety, I find that the claimant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to additional reasonably necessary medical treatment from Dr. Hart beyond April 9, 2006, specifically including the provocative discography procedure, and therefore, I must respectfully dissent.
The Workers' Compensation Act requires employers to provide such medical services as may be reasonably necessary in connection with an employee's injury. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a) (Repl. 2002). Injured employees must prove that medical services are reasonably necessary by a preponderance of the evidence; however, those services may include that necessary to accurately diagnose the nature and extent of the compensable injury; to reduce or alleviate symptoms resulting from the compensable injury; to maintain the level of healing achieved; or to prevent further deterioration of the damage produced by the compensable injury. Ark. Code Ann. § 11 9 705(a)(3) (Repl. 2002);Jordan v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 51 Ark. App. 100, 911 S.W.2d 593 (1995);Artex Hydrophonics, Inc. v. Pippin, 8 Ark. App. 200, 649 S.W.2d 845 (1983). Furthermore, this Commission has found that treatment intended to help a claimant cope with chronic pain attributable to a compensable injury may be reasonable and necessary. Maynard v. Belden Wire Cable Company, Full Workers' Compensation Commission Opinion filed April 28, 1998 ( E502002); Billy Chronister v. Lavaca Vault, Full Workers' Compensation Commission opinion filed June 20, 1991 (Claim No. 704562). Additionally, a claimant does not have to support a continued need for medical treatment with objective findings. Chamber Door Industries, Inc. v. Graham, 59 Ark. App. 224, 956 S.W.2d 196 (1997).
Here, the claimant sustained an admittedly compensable lower back injury on August 11, 2005. On January 13, 2006, Dr. Bruffett diagnosed the claimant with a "bulging disc and degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. . . ." After having been provided some conservative treatment, the claimant was released to return to work by Dr. Bruffett on April 9, 2006 despite continued complaints of pain. Subsequently, the claimant sought, and was granted a Change of Physician Order to Dr. Thomas Hart. The essential dispute in this case arises because Dr. Hart has recommended a provocative discography and Dr. Bruffett has opined that he would not recommend discography. The majority has specifically stated that it finds Dr. Bruffett's opinion to be more credible than the opinions of Dr. Hart and Dr. Chan. I disagree. While the Commission has the authority to resolve conflicting evidence, including medical testimony, Foxx v. American Transp., 54 Ark. App. 115, 924 S.W.2d 814 (1996), the Commission may not arbitrarily disregard medical evidence or the testimony of any witness. Coleman v. Pro-transportation, ____ Ark. App. ___, ___ S.W.2d_____, (2007).
I find that the majority has erred by giving Dr. Bruffet's opinion more weight than the opinions of Dr. Hart and Dr. Chan. Dr. Hart, the claimant's treating physician, was familiar with the claimant's condition. Dr. Hart based his recommendation for provocative discography on the claimant's current and former diagnostic studies, and the fact that previous conservative treatments had failed. Also, Dr. Hart noted that the claimant may be able to avoid surgery, depending on the results of the discography, which might indicate that non-surgical pain relief methods would suffice. In addition to Dr. Hart's opinion, Dr. Patrick Chan, a neurosurgeon, saw the claimant on May 3, 2006, diagnosing him with: "persistent low back pain and right leg pain, not better. . . . Need new MRI lumbar spine. May need L34 L45 L5S1 discogram/neuroplasty." The majority erroneously disregarded Dr. Chan's opinion altogether.
Furthermore, rather than basing its decision on Dr. Bruffett's opinion, I find that the majority should have given Dr. Bruffett's opinion very little weight. The evidence of record shows that Dr. Bruffett based his opinion almost entirely on an "invalid FCE" (functional capacity evaluation) that was of an "unreliable nature." However, I find that it is understandable that the claimant was unable to adequately complete the FCE: he was in terrible pain. I find the words of Dr. Hart sufficient to make the point:
[I]f a patient walked in and had two nails in his foot and had a functional capacity evaluation for his foot, obviously there would not be effort in performing those maneuvers. Denial of his care based on functional capacity evaluation I think is innappropriate and basically unethical.
When used inappropriately, as it was here, an FCE becomes a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy, a test an injured worker can only "adequately" complete if they are, in fact, uninjured. Dr. Bruffett should not have based his medical opinion solely on a Functional Capacity Evaluation.
Here, Dr. Hart and Dr. Chan have both opined that the claimant would benefit from discography. In Smith v. County Market/Southeast Foods, 73 Ark. App. 333, 44 S.W.3d 737 (2001) the Court of Appeals found that the results of discographies are considered to be valid in showing objective findings. Similar to the claimant in Smith, the claimant here has undergone several diagnostic tests, but the conservative treatment that he has received based on those tests has not been effective. Dr. Hart has stated that a discography is necessary to provide appropriate pain management. Based on the Arkansas Court of Appeals acceptance of discographies as valid and acceptable tests to determine objective medical findings, I find that here, discography is reasonable and necessary to aid the claimant's treating physician, Dr. Hart, in the administration of pain management. This Commission has found that treatment intended to help a claimant cope with chronic pain attributable to a compensable injury may be reasonable and necessary.Maynard v. Belden Wire Cable Company, Full Workers' Compensation Commission Opinion filed April 28, 1998 ( E502002); Billy Chronister v. Lavaca Vault, Full Workers' Compensation Commission opinion filed June 20, 1991 (Claim No. 704562). Here, the evidence of record shows that the claimant has consistently complained of pain from his admittedly compensable back injury. As such, the majority's determination that not only is the claimant not entitled to the discography recommended by Dr. Hart, but is also not entitled to any additional reasonably necessary medical treatment in the form of pain management, is clearly erroneous.
In conclusion, given that the claimant has consistently complained of pain since his work-related injury, that two doctors feel the procedure would aide in diagnosing and treating the claimant's medical issues, including the claimant's treating physician and a neurosurgeon, I find that the majority's determination that the provocative discography is not reasonably necessary and that the claimant is not entitled to any additional reasonably necessary medical treatment from Dr. Hart after July 10, 2006 to be erroneous.
For the aforementioned reasons, I must respectfully dissent.
______________________________ PHILIP A. HOOD, Commissioner