Opinion
526413
12-06-2018
In the Matter of the Claim of Jenmarie BYRNES, Claimant, v. NEW ISLAND HOSPITAL et al., Appellants. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
Habberfield Kaszycki LLP, Buffalo (Ashley M. Bulger of counsel), for appellants. Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General, New York City (Marjorie S. Leff of counsel), for respondent.
Habberfield Kaszycki LLP, Buffalo (Ashley M. Bulger of counsel), for appellants.
Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General, New York City (Marjorie S. Leff of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., McCarthy, Lynch, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Rumsey, J.Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed June 12, 2017, which ruled that claimant's use of the prescription drug Amrix is medically necessary.
Claimant suffered work-related injuries to her back, right shoulder and left hip in 2000 and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. The claim was later amended to include consequential injuries to the right shoulder and left hip. In February 2016, the employer and its workers' compensation carrier (hereinafter collectively referred to as the employer) submitted a request for further action, asserting that claimant's continued, long-term use of the prescription medication Amrix was not medically necessary. At a hearing, the employer's medical expert testified that Amrix is a muscle relaxant that is recommended for only short-term use not exceeding three weeks. He opined, therefore, that there was no medical basis for claimant's continued use of the medication. Claimant's treating physician testified that claimant had experienced a positive response to Amrix and that, in combination with other therapies, it had allowed her to perform the activities of daily living and to continue working as a nurse. Following the hearing, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found that the medication is medically necessary, and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. The employer appeals.
We affirm. The Board was empowered to resolve the conflicting medical evidence and to credit the opinion of claimant's expert over the employer's expert (see Matter of Soluri v. Superformula Prods., Inc. , 96 A.D.3d 1292, 1292, 946 N.Y.S.2d 712 [2012] ; Matter of Hare v. Champion Intl. , 50 A.D.3d 1254, 1255, 855 N.Y.S.2d 741 [2008], lv dismissed 11 N.Y.3d 863, 872 N.Y.S.2d 68, 900 N.E.2d 550 [2008] ; Matter of Thomas v. City of Albany School Dist. , 307 A.D.2d 664, 664, 762 N.Y.S.2d 844 [2003] ; Matter of Morrell v. Onondaga County , 244 A.D.2d 695, 696–698 [1997] ). Although the Board's Non–Acute Pain Management Guidelines recommend only short-term use of Amrix, claimant's treating physician testified that the effects of the drug vary on a patient-to-patient basis and that the continued use of Amrix had been successful in treating claimant's muscle spasms and related pain. In light of the foregoing, we find that the Board's decision that claimant established that her continued use of Amrix is medically necessary is supported by substantial evidence.
Garry, P.J., McCarthy, Lynch and Aarons, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.