This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Worker, employed at a jeans manufacturing plant, suffered an accidental injury on December 11, 1991, while performing repetitive sewing tasks. She reported injuries to her hands, wrists, and neck, later diagnosed as bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Despite undergoing surgeries and treatment, the Worker continued to experience symptoms and ceased working in March 1992. The dispute centers on whether the Worker is entitled to permanent partial disability benefits for injuries to nonscheduled body parts, specifically her neck and shoulders (paras 2-7).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Administration: The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) denied the Employer's motion in limine to exclude a medical report by Dr. Fogel and awarded the Worker permanent partial disability benefits, attorney fees, and costs related to the report (paras 9-10).
Parties' Submissions
- Employer (Appellant): Argued that Dr. Fogel's impairment report was inadmissible because it did not comply with statutory requirements for testimony under the Workers' Compensation Act. The Employer contended that Dr. Fogel was neither an authorized treating physician nor an independent medical examiner agreed upon by the parties or appointed by the WCJ (paras 8, 14, 19-20).
- Worker (Appellee): Asserted that Dr. Fogel's report was admissible as it complied with procedural rules for written medical evidence. The Worker argued that the report established a separate and distinct impairment to nonscheduled body parts, entitling her to permanent partial disability benefits (paras 9, 13, 25).
Legal Issues
- Was Dr. Fogel's impairment evaluation report admissible under the Workers' Compensation Act?
- Did the Worker establish entitlement to permanent partial disability benefits for a separate and distinct impairment to nonscheduled body parts?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the WCJ's decision to admit Dr. Fogel's report and remanded the case for new findings and conclusions in light of the exclusion of the report (paras 26-27).
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Pickard and Bustamante JJ. concurring):
The Court found that Dr. Fogel's report constituted inadmissible testimony under Section 52-1-51(C) of the Workers' Compensation Act. Dr. Fogel was neither an authorized treating physician under Section 52-1-49 nor an independent medical examiner agreed upon by the parties or appointed by the WCJ. The unilateral retention of Dr. Fogel by the Worker's attorney did not comply with statutory requirements. Additionally, the Court rejected the WCJ's reasoning that the report was admissible because it was in writing and complied with procedural rules for medical records. The Court emphasized that compliance with procedural rules does not override statutory limitations on admissible testimony. The case was remanded for reconsideration of the remaining issues without reliance on Dr. Fogel's report (paras 14-24, 26-27).