Opinion
W.C. Nos. 4-714-037 4-717-509.
October 27, 2008.
FINAL ORDER
The respondents seek review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Stuber (ALJ) dated June 12, 2008 that denied and dismissed the worker's claim identified as W.C. No. 4-717-509 and ordered the insurer to pay for claimant's reasonably necessary medical treatment for her right shoulder injury under the claim identified as W.C. No. 4-714-037. We affirm.
On February 5, 2007, the claimant suffered an admitted work injury to her back, neck, left knee and wrists identified as W.C. No. 4-714-037. As part of the medical treatment for the February 5, 2007 accident, the claimant received physical therapy. The claimant returned to work at light duty for the employer and began to experience increased pain in her neck and right shoulder. On February 21, 2007, the claimant attended a scheduled physical therapy appointment. During the treatment the claimant felt sharp pain in her right shoulder, and later suffered weakness and numbness in her right arm. The claimant required medical treatment for her right shoulder injury. The claimant filed a worker's claim for compensation for an injury from repetitive use of the right arm at work on February 21, 2007. This claim is identified as W.C. No. 4-717-509.
The ALJ found that the evidence did not demonstrate that the claimant suffered a right shoulder injury arising out of and in the course of her employment on February 21, 2007 due to repetitive arm use. However, the ALJ found that the claimant suffered an injury on February 21, 2007, as a result of physical therapy treatment by an authorized medical treatment provider for the February 5, 2007 industrial injury. The ALJ concluded that the February 21, 2007 injury to her right shoulder was in the quasi-course of claimant's employment and was due to the admitted February 5, 2007 industrial injury.
We first note that the claimant contends that the respondents' petition to review is fatally defective because it listed only W.C. No. 4-717-509, identifying the February 21, 2007 claimed accident, which was dismissed by the ALJ's order. The claimant argues the respondents failed in their petition to review to list W.C. No. 4-714-037, which identifies the February 5, 2007 accident on which the ALJ ordered the insurer to pay for the claimant's necessary medical treatment for her right shoulder condition. We are not persuaded.
Section 8-43-301(2) C.R.S. 2008 provides that a petition to review an ALJ's order must be filed within 20 days of the date of the certificate of mailing of the ALJ's order. This provision is jurisdictional and strictly enforced. Buschmann v. Gallegos Masonry, Inc., 805 P.2d 1193 (Colo.App. 1991). However, all that is required is that the "petition to review shall be in writing and shall set forth in detail the particular errors and objections of the petitioner." It has been held that a petition to review need not take any particular form nor be captioned in any particular fashion. Miller v. Source One W. C. No. 4-418-173(December 19, 2003). For instance, a written letter setting forth counsel's specific objections to a particular order has been held sufficient to constitute a petition to review if timely filed. Miller v. Industrial Commission, 28 Colo. App. 462, 474 P.2d 177 (1970), disapproved on other grounds, 682 P.2d 1185 at 1188; see also, Ward v. Azotea Contractors, 748 P.2d 338, 340 at n. 3 (Colo. 1987).
Here the petition to review stated specific written objections to the findings contained in the June 12, 2008 order, was filed within twenty days of the order, and was served on the claimant. The two claims were both heard at the June 4, 2008 hearing. The ALJ issued a single order addressing both claims. Even though the petition to review did not contain the W.C. number identifying the claim that the ALJ ordered benefits to be paid on, in our view it is sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements of section 8-43-301(2). See Herl v. Alpine Meadow Landscaping Design, W.C. No. 3-801-615 (October 3, 1988).
On appeal, the respondents contend that the ALJ erred in finding that the claimant's right shoulder injury was a compensable component of the February 5, 2007 injury under the quasi-course of employment doctrine. The respondents argue that the admitted February 5, 2007 claim did not involve a right shoulder claim and the ALJ found the right arm pain experienced at work on February 21, 2007 was not disabling and so dismissed the claim. The respondents argue they were under no obligation to provide medical treatment for the right shoulder and the claimant was under no obligation to seek medical treatment for her shoulder. Therefore, the respondents contend that the ALJ erred in determining that the shoulder injury arose out of the quasi-course of the claimant's employment. We are not persuaded.
The quasi-course of employment doctrine was first applied to injuries that occurred en route to authorized treatment for the original compensable injury. See Price Mine Service v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 64 P.3d 936, 938 (Colo.App. 2003) (traveling home from authorized medical treatment); Excel Corp. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 860 P.2d 1393, 1395 (Colo.App. 1993) (slip and fall leaving authorized physical therapy). The doctrine was extended to include injuries involving an evaluation of the underlying workers' compensation claim, even though the claimant receives no treatment. See Turner v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office 111 P.3d 534 (Colo.App. 2004). However, the quasi-course of employment doctrine does not extend to injuries involving unauthorized medical treatment, see Schrieber v. Brown Root, Inc., 888 P.2d 274 (Colo.App. 1993), and litigation stress. See Jarosinski v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 62 P.2d 1082 (Colo.App. 2002).
Here, the claimant attended a regularly scheduled physical therapy appointment for treatment of her admitted February 5, 2007 work injury. In workers' compensation proceedings, "authorization" means "a physician's status as the health care provider legally authorized to treat an injured worker." Mason Jar Restaurant v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 862 P.2d 1026, 1029 (Colo.App. 1993). See also, One Hour Cleaners v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 914 P.2d 501 (Colo.App. 1995) (refers to the legal authority of a provider to deliver care to a claimant). There is no dispute here that the physical therapist was "authorized" to provide treatment for the injuries the claimant received to her back, neck, left knee and wrists from the admitted injury. However, the respondents argue that during the physical therapy the claimant received treatment to her shoulder and that this treatment was not authorized. The respondents contend that the claimant's shoulder injury was not a compensable component of the original claim. Therefore, according to the respondents, they were under no obligation to provide treatment to the shoulder and the claimant was under no obligation to seek treatment for the shoulder.
However, the ALJ found that the admitted neck injury and the subsequent symptoms in the right shoulder can be reasonably related. The ALJ found that this was not a case in which the physical therapist colluded with the claimant to treat a completely unrelated injury to another body part. Rather the ALJ found that the therapist reasonably believed that the right shoulder treatment was related to the original work injury.
Here, the ALJ found that the claimant suffered some shoulder pain as a result of the February 5, 2007 accident. The ALJ further found that the claimant suffered some right shoulder and right-sided neck pain during her work at the light duty job provided by the employer. The ALJ specifically found that "[t]he admitted neck injury and the subsequent symptoms in the right shoulder can be reasonably related." As we read the ALJ's order, he found that treatment of the right shoulder was viewed by both the claimant and the authorized medical provider as reasonable and necessary to cure or relieve the effects of the February 5, 2007 injury.
In our view, the subsequent intervening injury resulting from the physical therapy is compensable because it occurred during the activity of attending physical therapy necessary as a result of the first injury, which implicates the implied contractual obligations between the parties inherent in the workers' compensation system. Thus the right shoulder injury sustained by the claimant was a consequence of obtaining medical treatment for the admitted February 5, 2007 accident. The right shoulder injury is compensable under the quasi-course of employment doctrine because of the employer's obligation to provide such treatment and the claimant's duty of cooperation, which renders the treatment an implied part of the employment contract. See Turner v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office 111 P.3d 534 (Colo.App. 2004).
We are not persuaded that the ALJ erred in finding the insurer liable for necessary medical treatment of the right shoulder injured as a direct result of therapy provided by the designated authorized physical therapist. See also, Industrial Commission v. Standard Ins. Co., 149 Colo. 587, 370 P.2d 156 (Colo. 1962) (aggravation resulting from negligent medical treatment of an injury incurred in an industrial accident is within the scope of the statutory liability of the employer). We perceive no error in the ALJ's application of the quasi-course of employment doctrine.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ's order issued June 12, 2008 is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
______________________________ John D. Baird
______________________________ Thomas Schrant
INGRID TANNER, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO, (Claimant), SYNTHES USA, MONUMENT, CO, (Employer), TRAVELERS, Attn: CAROLE LANGDON/MARCHELLE ROBINSON, C/O: TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, DENVER, CO, (Insurer), MCDIVITT LAW FIRM, PC, Attn: SHEILA TOBORG, ESQ., COLORADO SPRINGS, CO, (For Claimant).
RAY LEGO ASSOCIATES, Attn: KEITH E MOTTRAM, ESQ., GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO, (For Respondents).