This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A home health care worker suffered a job-related injury, breaking her foot, which affected her leg, back, and mental health. This resulted in temporary total disability for 89 weeks. The worker received treatment for orthopedic symptoms and psychological issues. Evidence, including videotape, was introduced to challenge the worker's claims of pain and physical limitations (paras 4-5).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Administration: Found that the worker had no physical impairment after reaching maximum medical improvement and denied disability benefits for her psychological condition due to the lack of a numerical impairment rating (headnotes, paras 1-2).
Parties' Submissions
- Worker-Appellant: Argued that the finding of no physical impairment was incorrect, that disability benefits should be awarded for her psychological condition despite the lack of a numerical rating, and that the judge erred in calculating disability contrary to the parties' pretrial stipulation (para 2).
- Employer/Insurer-Appellee: Contended that substantial evidence supported the finding of no physical impairment, that recovery from physical impairment precluded benefits for secondary mental impairment, and that the worker failed to prove a numerical rating for her psychological condition (para 2).
Legal Issues
- Was the finding of no physical impairment supported by substantial evidence?
- Should the worker be awarded disability benefits for her psychological condition despite the lack of a numerical impairment rating?
- Did the judge err in calculating disability contrary to the parties' pretrial stipulation?
Disposition
- The finding of no physical impairment was affirmed.
- The denial of disability benefits for the psychological condition was reversed.
- The case was remanded for a determination of benefits for the worker's secondary mental impairment and recalculation of benefits using the parties' stipulation (para 20).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Apodaca C.J. and Hartz J. concurring):
Physical Impairment: The judge was entitled to discount the 5% impairment rating provided by the worker's doctor due to evidence casting doubt on the worker's complaints of pain. Substantial evidence supported the finding of no physical impairment (paras 9-10).
Psychological Condition: The judge erred in denying benefits for the psychological condition solely because it lacked a numerical rating. The statute does not require a numerical rating for mental impairments, and the worker's psychologist provided a nonnumerical rating consistent with the AMA Guidelines. The worker is entitled to benefits for secondary mental impairment for approximately 11 weeks (paras 11-18).
Physical Capacity Modifier: The judge's finding that the physical capacity of the worker's job was "medium" was incorrect, as it contradicted the parties' pretrial stipulation that it was "heavy." The judge erred by not adhering to the stipulation (para 19).
The case was remanded for recalculating benefits for the worker's secondary mental impairment and correcting the physical capacity modifier (para 20).