Robertson v. Almyra Farmers Association

Full title: JAMES C. ROBERTSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT v. ALMYRA FARMERS ASSOCIATION, INC.…

Court: Before the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission

Date published: Feb 7, 2011

2011 AWCC 22 (Ark. Work Comp. 2011)

Opinion

CLAIM NO. F711405

OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 7, 2011

Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.

Claimant represented by the HONORABLE KENNETH A. OLSEN, Attorney at Law, Bryant, Arkansas.

Respondent represented by the HONORABLE GUY ALTON WADE, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Reversed.

OPINION AND ORDER

The respondents appeal and the claimant cross-appeals an administrative law judge's opinion filed September 15, 2010. The administrative law judge found that the claimant proved he was entitled to an anatomical impairment rating of 4% in addition to the 4% rating already accepted and paid by the respondents. After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission reverses the administrative law judge's opinion. The Full Commission finds that the claimant proved he sustained anatomical impairment in the amount of 4% as a result of the compensable injury.

I. HISTORY

The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable right shoulder injury on October 1, 2007. The record indicates that Dr. Charles E. Pearce, Jr. performed surgery on October 24, 2007. Dr. Pearce reported on February 28, 2008, "Mr. Robertson is post right shoulder arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, subacromial decompression and distal clavicle resection as well as biceps tenodesis. He is doing reasonably well. He has complaints of pain and weakness, but overall he has done well in my opinion."

Dr. Pearce reported on March 27, 2008:

Mr. Robertson is post right shoulder arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, subacromial decompression and distal clavicle resection and biceps tenodesis. He complains of some pain about his shoulder. . . .

His motion is quite good. He has mild subacromial crepitation. He has good strength. . . .

He has sustained 7% permanent partial impairment as it pertains to the upper extremity. This would be 4% of the person as a whole. This is according to the Guide to Evaluation of Permanent Impairment set forth by the American Medical Association, 4^th Edition. . . .

A Change Of Physician Order was entered on October 27, 2008 approving a change of physician from Dr. Pearce to Dr. Jason G. Stewart. Dr. Stewart examined the claimant on November 20, 2008:

This is a 56-year-old gentleman with right shoulder pain. He sustained an injury when tightening a lug nut on a four wheeler tire. He felt a pop and pain. . . .An MRI was obtained and showed a full thickness supraspinatus tear, a partial tear of the subscapularis, and a dislocated biceps tendon as well as a possible labral injury.

Dr. Pearce recommended surgery and Mr. Robertson underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, subacromial decompression, distal clavicle resection, and biceps tenodesis as well as labral debridement on 10/24/07. He has continued to have discomfort in the shoulder, despite undergoing prolonged and aggressive physical therapy. His shoulder is not back to what he would like it to be. He has already been declared at maximum medical improvement and an impairment rating of 7% upper extremity, 4% whole person was administered based on the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fourth Edition, from the American Medical Association. . . .

Right Shoulder : The shoulder is examined without a shirt. In comparing it to the opposite side I see no muscle atrophy of the supraspinatus, infraspinatus, or deltoid musculature. The bulk of the muscle appears to be equal to the opposite side. There are well healed scars consistent with arthroscopy present. There is no instability of the shoulder. I do feel an occasional deep seated popping from the subacromial space with movement of the arm. It feels like crepitus and scar tissue from the rotator cuff repair. He has good strength in abduction, external and internal rotation of the arm, and he has full range of motion of the shoulder with no instability. He does report tenderness in the anterior and lateral aspects of the deltoid.

IMAGING :

Two views of the shoulder shows evidence of acromioplasty and distal clavicle resection. No glenohumeral arthritic change is noted.

ASSESSMENT :

Continued chronic pain, status post rotator cuff subacromial decompression and distal clavicle resection with biceps tenodesis and labral debridement.

PLAN :

Unfortunately, I do not see any further surgical nor medical interventions other than what has already been recommended by his other physician. With his strength where it is as well as his range of motion and no muscle atrophy, I do not think any therapy is further warranted. I do agree with the impairment rating and I do believe he is truly at maximum medial (sic) improvement and I would have him return to regular duty without restriction if his job is still available.

The parties stipulated that the respondents accepted a 4% rating.

A pre-hearing order was filed on April 28, 2010. The claimant contended that he was entitled to "an additional 4% rating for his shoulder injury based on Table 27, page 61 of the AMA Guides, 4^th Edition." The respondents contended that all appropriate benefits had been paid. The parties agreed to litigate the issues, "Additional permanent partial disability benefits and attorney's fees."

An administrative law judge filed an amended opinion on September 15, 2010. The administrative law judge found that the claimant proved he had sustained permanent impairment "entitling him to an additional 4% in permanent partial disability benefits for a total of 8% to the body as a whole[.]" The respondents appeal to the Full Commission and the claimant cross-appeals.

II. ADJUDICATION

"Permanent impairment" has been defined as any permanent functional or anatomical loss remaining after the healing period has ended. Excelsior Hotel v. Squires, 83 Ark. App. 26, 115 S.W.2d 823 (2003), citing Johnson v. General Dynamics, 46 Ark. App. 188, 878 S.W.2d 411 (1994). Any determination of the existence or extent of physical impairment shall be supported by objective and measurable physical or mental findings. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(1)(B) (Repl. 2002). Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16)(A) (Repl. 2002) provides:

(i) "Objective findings" are those findings which cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient.

(ii) When determining physical or anatomical impairment, neither a physician, any other medical provider, an administrative law judge, the Workers' Compensation Commission, nor the courts may consider complaints of pain; . . .

(B) Medical opinions addressing compensability and permanent impairment must be stated within a reasonable degree of medical certainty[.]

Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-522(g) (Repl. 2002), the Commission must adopt an impairment rating guide to be used in assessing anatomical impairment. The Commission has therefore adopted the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (4^th Ed. 1993) published by the American Medical Association. See Arkansas Workers' Compensation Laws And Rules Annotated, Rule 099.34.

The Commission is authorized to decide which portions of the medical evidence to credit and to translate this medical evidence into a finding of permanent impairment using the American Medical Association Guides. See Polk County v. Jones, 74 Ark. App. 159, 47 S.W.3d 904 (2001). Thus, the Commission may assess its own impairment rating rather than rely solely on its determination of the validity of ratings assigned by physicians. Id.

In the present matter, the claimant contends that he is entitled to a 14% anatomical impairment rating rather than the 4% rating accepted and paid by the respondents. The claimant relies on Table 27, p. 3/61 of the Guides, which assigns a permanent rating for "resection arthroplasty." Nevertheless, Dr. Pearce assigned the claimant a 4% anatomical impairment rating based on surgery performed by Dr. Pearce, i.e., arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, subacromial decompression, distal clavicle resection, and biceps tenodesis. Dr. Stewart agreed with Dr. Pearce's description of the surgical procedures performed on the claimant and also assessed a 4% anatomical impairment rating. The Commission has the authority to accept or reject a medical opinion and the authority to determine its probative value. Poulan Weed Eater v. Marshall, 79 Ark. App. 129, 84 S.W.3d 878 (2002). In the present matter there are no medical reports of record contradicting the opinions of Dr. Pearce and Dr. Stewart. The Full Commission finds that the expert opinions of Dr. Pearce and Dr. Stewart are entitled to significant probative weight. We also note that the permanent ratings assessed by Dr. Pearce and Dr. Stewart are entirely consistent with the Guides at Table 3, page 3/20. According to Table 3, a 7% rating to the upper extremity converts to a 4% whole-person rating. Both Dr. Pearce and Dr. Stewart agreed that the claimant was entitled to a 4% whole-person rating. There is no evidence of record demonstrating that Dr. Pearce, Dr. Stewart, or any other physician would assign the instant claimant a 14% anatomical impairment rating based on Table 27, p. 3/61 of the Guides. The claimant also cites as authority an unpublished Full Commission case dated August 25, 2009. Nevertheless, Full Commission opinions are not considered as precedent by the Arkansas Court of Appeals. See Family Dollar v. Edwards, 97 Ark. App. 156, 245 S.W.3d 181 (2006).

Based on our de novo review of the entire record, the Full Commission reverses the administrative law judge's finding that the claimant proved he was entitled to anatomical impairment of 4% in addition to the 4% rating accepted and paid by the respondents. The Full Commission finds that the claimant proved he was entitled to a permanent anatomical impairment rating of 4%. We find that the 4% anatomical impairment rating assessed by Dr. Pearce and Dr. Stewart is based on objective medical findings and conforms with the authorized 4^th Edition of the Guides. The opinions of Dr. Pearce and Dr. Stewart were stated within a reasonable degree of medical certainty. The record demonstrates that the October 1, 2007 compensable injury was the major cause of the claimant's 4% permanent anatomical impairment. The Full Commission finds that the appropriate section of the Guides for assessing the instant claimant's permanent impairment is found at Table 3, p. 3/20. The instant claim for additional benefits is denied and dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

A. WATSON BELL, Chairman

KAREN H. McKINNEY, Commissioner

Commissioner Hood dissents.

DISSENTING OPINION

After my de novo review of the entire record, I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion, because I find that the claimant is entitled to a fourteen percent permanent anatomical impairment rating, pursuant to the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (4^th Ed. 1993).

The dispute in this claim lies in the application of theGuides to determine the claimant's impairment rating. The claimant underwent right shoulder arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, subacromial decompression and distal clavicle resection and biceps tenodesis and labral debridement. Two doctors opined that the claimant sustained seven percent permanent impairment to the upper extremity, which translates to four percent to the body as a whole. The doctors made no mention of what part of the Guides was used to determine that rating. The respondents accepted and paid the four percent rating. The claimant is currently seeking an additional twenty percent rating to conform to Table 27 of theGuides.

The majority found that the rating comports with Table 3, page 3/20, which states that impairments of six and seven percent to the upper extremity equal a four percent impairment to the body as a whole. There is a significant problem with the majority's conclusion that "the permanent ratings assessed by Dr. Pearce and Dr. Stewart are entirely consistent with the Guides at Table 3, page 3/20." Table 3 is merely a conversion table. It is not used to assess impairment, but only to convert a regional impairment to a whole body impairment. The fact that the doctors' ratings were converted correctly is a fine thing, but the question of how the seven percent rating to the upper extremity was calculated remains. Actually, it will remain an unanswerable question, because it is impossible to work backwards from the seven percent rating and come to a certain conclusion as to the method used. It would appear that the seven percent rating to the shoulder was based upon some range of motion measurement, as there is not another way to get to seven percent to the claimant's shoulder under the Guides.

Both tables are found in Chapter 3, concerning the musculoskeletal system and, more specifically, Section 3.1, concerning the hand and upper extremity. Table 3 is found in Section 3.1a, devoted to evaluation in general using the rest of the chapter, while Table 27 is found in Section 3.1m, devoted to impairment due to other disorders of the upper extremity.

Section 3.1a explains that Figure 1, part 2, (Upper Extremity Impairment Evaluation Record — Part 2 (wrist, elbow, and shoulder) was designed to assist evaluation of wrist, elbow and shoulder impairment. Once one or more impairments are calculated according to Figure 1, part 2, and combined if necessary, Table 3 (Relationship of Impairment of the Upper Extremity to Impairment of the Whole Person) is used to convert the impairments to a whole-person impairment.

Section 3.1o is titled Summary of Steps for Evaluating Impairments of the Upper Extremity. For the shoulder region, it states, using Figure 1, part 2, page 3/17:

Determine upper extremity impairments due to loss of motion (Section 3.1j, p. 41) and other disorders (Section 3.1m, p. 58) and combine the values to determine the upper extremity impairment involving the shoulder region. (Emphasis in original.)

Then, the upper extremity impairment is converted to a whole person impairment using Table 3, p. 20.

Loss of motion, to the extent the measurement is within the control of the claimant, is not an acceptable basis for an impairment rating under Arkansas law. Ark. Code Ann Secs. 11-9-704(c)(1)(B) and 11-9-102(16)(A). The rating must then come from Section 3.1m, p. 58, (Impairment Due to Other Disorders of the Upper Extremity) which addresses bone and joint disorders, presence of resection or implant arthroplasty, musculotendinous disorders, and loss of strength. Within Section 3.1m, the only conditions implicated in Dr. Stewart's evaluation of the claimant are popping, which he related to crepitus and scar tissue, and the surgery itself. Crepitus is not used where other findings indicate a greater severity of the same pathologic process.Guides, p. 3/58. In this case, the surgery itself is the pathologic process which is addressed by Table 27 (Impairment of the Upper Extremity After Arthroplasty of Specific Bones or Joints).

Arthroplasty is plastic surgery of a joint or joints; the formation of movable joints. DORLAND'S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY 149 (27^th Edition 1988). Plastic surgery is surgery concerned with the restoration, reconstruction, correction or improvement in the shape and appearance of body structures that are defective, damaged, or misshapen by injury, disease, or growth and development. Supra at 1617. Arthroscopy is examination of the interior of a joint with an arthroscope, which is an endoscope for examining the interior of a joint and for carrying out diagnostic and therapeutic procedures within the joint. Supra at 149. Resection is the excision of a portion or all of an organ or other structure.Supra at 1448.

I note that the Guides only refer to arthroplasty in Section 3.1m. In reference to joint replacement surgeries, the term arthroplasty is not used.

The claimant was diagnosed with a full thickness supraspinatus tear, a partial tear of the subscapularis, a dislocated biceps tendon and a labral injury. He underwent right shoulder arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, subacromial decompression and distal clavicle resection and biceps tenodesis and labral debridement. This was an arthroscopic arthroplasty, reconstructing and repairing the joint and its structures after injury. Table 27 applies.

Table 27 provides that simple resection arthroplasty is given 40% impairment of the joint value. For total shoulder resection arthroplasty, the impairment is 24%, and for an isolated distal clavicle resection arthroplasty, the impairment is 10%. Following the instruction of Section 3.1o, the claimant has an impairment of 24% to the upper extremity, which is converted, under Table 3, to a 14% impairment to the body as a whole.

The major cause of the claimant's impairment is certainly the work-related injury which caused the tears and damage in his shoulder, requiring surgical repair. The claimant has demonstrated that the appropriate permanent anatomical impairment rating is fourteen percent to the body as a whole, pursuant to Table 27, p. 3/61.

I find that the claimant sustained a permanent anatomical impairment of fourteen percent to the body as a whole, of which the respondents are liable for the ten percent which remains unpaid as well as an attorney's fee.

For the foregoing reasons, I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.

______________________________ PHILIP A. HOOD, Commissioner