BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: G304424

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: G JOEY DAVIS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT TYSON POULTRY, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TYNET INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 9, 2016 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on the 27 th day of April, 2016, at Russellville, Pope County, Arkansas. Claimant represented by David L. Schneider, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Respondents represented by R. Scott Zuerker, Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A hearing was conducted on the 27 th day of April, 2016, to determine the issue of temporary total disability along with medical benefits. A prehearing conference was conducted in this claim on February 23 rd, 2016, and a Prehearing Order was filed on said date. At the hearing, the parties announced that the stipulations, issues, as well as their respective contentions were correctly set out in the Prehearing Order. It was stipulated that the Arkansas Workers Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within claim and that an employer/employee relationship existed on January 18 th, 2011, the date of the injury. Additionally, the employee earned sufficient wages for a temporary total disability rate of $ and a permanent partial disability rate of $ per week based upon the submitted briefs of the parties.

2 By agreement of the parties, the following issues were presented for determination: Medical benefits and temporary total disability. The hearing consisted solely of the testimony of the claimant, Mr. Joey Davis. The claimant contended in summary, that he was employed by Tyson Foods on January 18 th, 2011, and his job was to hang live chickens on shackles. The chickens are in cages that are brought in by fork lifts, the cages are dumped by a hydraulic lift onto a conveyor belt, and the claimant would lift the chickens off of the belt. The claimant stated that he would reach down and hang them by both feet at the rate of about 45 a minute. The claimant testified that while hanging a chicken, his second finger on his right hand hung in the shackle and the line kept moving. He pulled the finger out and it was hurting so he then went to the nurse and they applied ice and heat therapy. The claimant testified that after about three months, he went to see Doctor Kirkland in Dardanelle, who x-rayed the finger and ordered physical therapy and this went on for about three months and his finger did not get any better. Doctor Kirkland ordered a steroid shot and the pain went away but returned. Claimant finally went to see Doctor Moore in Little Rock, who performed surgery on May 22, 2013, and Doctor Moore returned the Claimant to work on June 6, 2013, with physical therapy. Doctor Moore performed a second surgery to the Claimant on January 27th, 2014, with the Claimant returning to work on January 30, Claimant testified that he still has pain and swelling in his finger and that he cannot straighten his finger. Claimant further testified that he can now close the finger down to his palm but that he cannot open it all of the way up. 2

3 According to the Claimant, Doctor Moore recommended another surgery, but Doctor Moore was now retired, so the claimant then saw Doctor Norton, and he tried to use his Obamacare. However under cross examination, the Claimant admitted that Doctor Norton did not recommend additional surgery. Claimant's last day of employment with the Respondent was December 12, Claimant underwent the above two surgeries by Doctor Moore, the first one being on May 22, 2013, which consisted of a right finger flexor digitorum profundus repair and a right long finger proximal interphalangeal joint contractive release. Doctor Moore released the Claimant to return to work on the 6th day of June, 2013, with the restriction being no use of the right hand. The second surgery by Doctor Moore occurred on January 27, 2014, which consisted of a right finger flexor tenosynovectomy and ulnar flexor digitorum sperficialis tendon slip excision and a right long finger placement of a "Digit Widget." Doctor Moore released the Claimant to return to work on January 30, 2014, with no use of the right hand. Respondent paid for all medical with the exception of the last office visit to Doctor Moore and the office visit to Doctor Norton. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Arkansas Workers Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. 2. The employer/employee relationship existed on January 18, 2011, the date of the injury. 3. The employee earned sufficient wages for a temporary total disability rate of $ and a permanent partial disability rate of $ per week. 3

4 4. The claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to temporary total disability for the two periods after surgery, beginning from the date of May 22, 2013, and being released to return to work on the 6th day of June, 2013, and also from the date of January 27 th, 2014, up to the date of January 29 th, 2014, returning to work on January 30th, 2014, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann Claimant is also entitled to the appropriate attorney fees in regard to this matter pursuant to Ark. Code Ann (a). Claimant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to any additional Temporary Total Disability. 5. The claimant has also failed to satisfy the burden of proof to establish that he is entitled to additional medical or for the payment of the last unpaid office visit to Doctor Moore or Doctor Morton. REVIEW OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE The facts in regard to this claim are straight forward as to the injury that the claim is based upon. However, the medical is somewhat confusing due to treatment by multiple doctors, multiple releases to return to work, and some conflict between the testimony and the medical records. The claimant worked as a live hanger at a Tyson Poultry plant, taking live chickens from a moving belt and hanging the live birds by both feet on moving shackles. The shackles are part of a line that continuously moves and claimant would hang about 45 birds a minute. (Tr. 5 7) Claimant testified that his second finger on his right hand went down into the shackle, the line just kept moving, and his finger was caught in the shackle with a chicken leg. (Tr. 7) 4

5 Claimant pulled his finger out but it was hurting. He then went to the nurse and he was treated with ice and heat therapy for three months. This did not appear to help so Claimant then went to the doctor. Claimant testified that his finger was in severe pain and that he was not able to open or close it all of the way. (Tr. 8) After about three more months, claimant went to see Doctor Kirkland, and the claimant received physical therapy three times a week for about three months. (Tr. 9) This did not help and the claimant was still working in the hanging pen, hanging chickens the same way. Doctor Kirkland then gave the claimant a steroid shot in the finger and this did help and the claimant was able to work normally for about three months. (Cl. 10) Claimant testified that he then went to see Doctor Moore who performed surgery on the finger. (Tr. 11) The surgery was on the inside of the palm. Claimant stated that after the surgery and after physical therapy, he could close his fingers all the way down. Claimant further testified that he has seen Doctor Moore since (Tr. 13) Claimant currently works at Colton s Steak House and testified that due to his finger, he can carry a lot less because he is a dish washer and that consequently he has to make more trips. The finger sometimes has a sharp pain and he has dropped a lot of dishes. (Tr. 14) Claimant stated that he cannot straighten his finger all of the way, but he can now close it down to his palm. (Tr. 15). The last doctor that claimant went to see about his finger was apparently Doctor Norton. (Tr. 16) During cross examination, claimant testified that Tyson paid for all of the medical except the last visit with Doctor Moore and the visit with Doctor Norton. (Tr. 18) During cross examination the following testimony occurred: 5

6 Q. Okay. And I think when my partner Diane Graham took your deposition back in January of 2015, I think you told her that you thought this injury where you caught your finger in the shackle occurred in October or November or December of Do you remember telling Ms. Graham that? A. That sounds right. Q. And as you sit here today, do you feel like this injury happened in October, November, or December of 2010? A doesn t sound right, so it has - - Q. Okay. So you think it happened in 2010? A. I think I didn t see the doctor till Q. Here s my question: Back when she took your deposition on January 14 th of 2015 y all were talking about when you had the injury to your finger, and she said, Okay, so it was October, November or December of 2010? And what was your answer? A. Yes. Q. Yes. Okay, let s, from that starting point, do you remember you also told her and I think you told the judge today that you went in when it happened and told the nurse about it, correct? A. Yes. 6

7 Q. And I m assuming that when you went in and did that you had to do your team member statement. Do you remember doing that, filling out the statement saying when it happened? A. No, the nurse does that. Q. Okay. And then do you end up signing it after the nurse fills it out? A. I believe so. (Tr. 19, 20) Continuing on with the cross examination, the claimant was shown a document that is page 2 of the non-medical exhibit that shows that the claimant reported the injury February 23 rd of (Tr ) Claimant also testified that his employment with Tyson ended on December 12, (Tr. 23) Claimant testified that he stopped working for Tyson because Tyson had come under new management in October so they moved our start time back from 7:00 o clock in the morning, at 7:00 o clock is the time we start so we have to be there at 6:00, to the time started at 6:00 o clock in the morning so we had to be there at 5:00, and I was showing up late collecting half points, and then the next month they decided to move it back another hour to the start up time being 5:00 o clock in the morning so I had to be there at 4:00, and so I started accumulating more half a points until to the point where I pointed out. (Tr. 24) Claimant was already working for a newspaper part time and he continued to work until March when he quit because I told them that I couldn t work no more because I had to have medical treatments on my hand from Tyson. (Tr. 25) Under further cross examination, Claimant admitted that in his deposition he had stated that he had quit delivering newspapers 7

8 because it wasn t enough money to pay for the gas. (Tr. 26) Claimant then went to work for Colton s on Thanksgiving of Claimant also testified that he looked for work when Doctor Moore said that he could work. (Tr. 27) Claimant admitted that he has worked for Colton s ever since November of 2014 and is currently working there. (Tr. 28) Claimant also admitted that he had a functional capacity exam in September of 2013, and that after the results, Doctor Moore removed the work restrictions from the claimant. Claimant further admitted that Doctor Norton accepts Obamacare insurance and that he has not had surgery because Doctor Norton feels that surgery is not necessary. (Tr. 28) On redirect, the claimant testified that Doctor Moore took him off of work for a while and then he was released on October 15 th, He did manage to find a job the following year. Claimant also admitted that Tyson paid him a permanent impairment based upon his finger and the opinion of Doctor Moore and that he did not work from May of 2013 through October 15 th, 2015, his release date by Doctor Moore. (Tr. 30) Under cross examination, the claimant was asked if he received a 7% impairment rating from Doctor Moore and the claimant responded that he did not know. (Tr. 31) In regard to the medical, Claimant submitted for a physical therapy plan evaluation and a plan of treatment dated March 31, The chief complaint was tender with movement of middle finger in regard to an injury of the right hand. Under history, the report provides that claimant was injured sometime in January while hanging chickens on a shackle and was told that the middle finger was jammed. The x ray did not show any fractures. (Cl. Ex. #1, P. 2) The 8

9 claimant continued to return for physical therapy and denied improvement. (Cl. Ex. #1, P. 4) On April 29, 2011, the River Valley Medical Center Physical Therapy Discharge Summary provided that the patient pain free when not at work, has pain but less while using hand/finger at work. Released by M.D.. (Cl. Ex. #1, P. 6) On July 23, 2012, the claimant presented to Doctor William G. Barron and the report provides that claimant comes in with the history that about a month ago he reached for a piece of chicken and hit the end of his left long finger. He states that it has been sore every (sic) since then. He states that overall it is getting a lot better and most of the swelling is gone. Doctor Barron stated that his finger will be fine and mostly healed and released him to regular duty. (Cl. Ex. #1, P. 7) Claimant again presented to Doctor Barron on the 18 th day of December, 2012 complaining of pain in his finger. The Doctor stated that the left index finger revealed a little tenderness and that the avulsion fracture had healed. Further, Doctor Barron stated that the right long finger revealed no swelling, negative x-rays, and that there was full range of motion, and that there was a normal examination of the right finger and the claimant was released to return to work. (Cl. Ex. #1, P. 8) On January 9 th, 2013 claimant presented to Doctor Owen Kelly with right hand pain and pain in the right middle finger. The report provides that the symptoms started two years ago and the pain is mild and intermittent, with the original injury date being January 18, 2011, while at work. (Cl. Ex. #1, P. 10). On January 31, 2013, Doctor Kelly provided a work release form that stated that the claimant is able to return to full activities at work with no restrictions. (Cl. Ex. 9

10 #1, P. 14) Still later, claimant presented to Doctor Michael Moore and on March 14, 2013, Doctor Michael Moore stated that the claimant could return to work on the 15 th day of March, 2013 with no pushing, pulling, lifting over 10lbs. with Right hand, wear splint. (Cl. Ex. #1, P. 18) On May 22, 2013, Doctor Moore provided an operative report that stated that the claimant has developed a 30-degree proximal interphalangeal joint flexion contracture and in addition there is crepitance and tenderness over the volar aspect of the proximal interphalangeal joint. The report also provided that there was scarring of the flexor tendon sheath. (Cl. Ex. #1. P. 19) After the surgery on June 6, 2013 Doctor Moore opined that the claimant could return to work but there could be no use of the right hand. (Cl. Ex. #1, P. 21) Claimant returned to Doctor Moore s office on July 5, 2013, and Doctor Moore stated under assessment that the patient is doing well following the recent surgery. (Cl. Ex. #1, P. 22) After the surgery and continued therapy treatments, Doctor Moore provided that the claimant could return to work on August 16, 2013 with no lifting, pushing, pulling over 10 lbs. and no repetitive motions with right hand. (Cl. Ex. #1, P. 25) Claimant also presented to Doctor Moore on September 12, 2013, and Doctor Moore stated that the claimant could return to work on that day. (Cl. Ex. #1, P. 28) A Functional Capacity Exam was performed on September 16, 2013, and the results indicated a reliable effort was put forth in 48 of 50 consistency measures within expected limits. The claimant demonstrated the ability to perform lifting/carrying of up to 50 lbs. on a frequent 10

11 basis and up to 20 lbs. on a constant basis. Claimant also demonstrated a maximal RUE lift of 25 lbs. and a maximal LUE of 45 lbs. In regard to the RUE, the claimant reported pain when trying to maintain his grip on the weight but made no outward adjustments with his hand on the weight. His lifts were smooth with no visible pain behaviors. Although the claimant demonstrated significantly decreased grip strength with both hands as compared to normative data, the claimant demonstrated the ability to perform work in the heavy classification as defined by the US Department of Labor s Guidelines. (Cl. Ex. #1, P ) It also should be pointed out that the claimant again reported to the office of Doctor Moore on October 15, 2013, and Doctor Moore stated that the claimant could return to work on that day. (Cl. Ex. #1, P. 48) The radiology report for the MRI dated November 14, 2013, provided that there is no evidence for fluid collection within the flexor tendons. There is minimal peripheral enhancement seen volar to the flexor tendon of the long finger at the level of the PIP joint. No significant tenosynovitis. No evidence for tendon rupture. No significant intrinsic signal abnormality. (Cl. Ex. #1, P. 51) On December 10, 2013, Doctor Moore opined that the claimant had residual pain symptoms in a contracture in the right long finger following the flexor tendon laceration which occurred at work. (Cl. Ex. #1, P. 54) Doctor Moore performed a second surgery on January 27, 2014 with a right long finger tenosynovectomy and ulnar flexor digitoum superficialis tendon slip excision and a right long finger placement of a "Digit Widget." (Cl. Ex. #1, P. 56) Doctor Moore further provided that the claimant would be absent from work from January 27, 2014, 11

12 thru January 29, 2014, due to surgery and that he could return to work on January 30, 2014, with no use of his right hand. (Cl. Ex. #1, P. 60) Claimant also returned to Doctor Moore on February 14, 2014, and Doctor Moore provided that the claimant could return to work on that day with no use of his right hand. (Cl. Ex. #1. P. 60). Claimant again returned to Doctor Moore on the 25th day of February 2014 and Doctor Moore again stated that the claimant could return to work on that date. (Cl. Ex. #1, P. 65) Claimant continued to return to Doctor Moore on March 11, 2014, and March, 24, 2014, and Doctor Moore returned him to work on both dates with restricted duty. (Cl. Ex. #1, P. 68, 71) The claimant again returned to Doctor Moore on the 22 nd day of April, Under assessment, Doctor Moore opined that the claimant would not benefit from any further therapy treatments. This motion in the right long finger has not significantly changed since his last visit on March 24, I also do not feel the function of the right long finger would significantly improve following any further surgery. Mr. Davis has reached his MMI following the recent surgery. The impairment of the right long finger is 27%. The impairment of the right hand is 5%. The impairment was based on the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4 th edition. These statements are made within a reasonable degree of medical certainty. (Cl. Ex. #1, P. 72) Further, Doctor Moore stated that the claimant could return to work on the twenty third day of April, 2014, for full duty with no restrictions. (Cl. Ex. #1, P. 74) Claimant returned to Doctor Moore s office again and an MRI was taken on September 2, 2014, of the right hand. Under findings the report provides that there is a mild diffuse 12

13 thickening of the flexor apparatus tendon sheath at the level of A2 and A3 pulleys persists with no fluid surrounding the flexor apparatus. The previously seen increased distance between the flexor apparatus tendon sheath and the middle phalanx persists due to chronic tear of A4 pulley. Normal insertion of the FDS and FDP tendons is noted. The extensor expansion is intact. The sagittal band is intact. The neurovascular bundles are normal. No bone bruises. No degenerative joint disease is seen in the MCP joint, PIP joint, and DIP joint of the right middle finger. (Cl. Ex. #1, P. 79) Claimant returned to Doctor Moore s office on the 13 th day of October, Doctor Moore opined that claimant only lacks about 15 degrees of full extension which will be very difficult to improve to a full extension. The doctor stated that I am afraid surgery might make him worse rather than better. I will like to think about this and get back within on whether or not I am willing to recommend surgery. (Cl. Ex. #1, P. 88) Respondents submitted a more extensive medical report from Doctor William G. Barron. The report provided that the claimant presented to Doctor Barron s office on the September, 15, 2011; January 12, 2012; March 14, 2012; and July 23, 2012, for his left long finger; August 1, 2012 for pain in his left thoracic area; December 13, 2012, for left eye twitching; December 18, 2012 for right finger pain. (Resp. Ex. #1, P. 4, 5) Respondents also submitted fifteen pages of attendance records in regard to claimant s work attendance and absenteeism. (Resp. #2, P. 3 17). Additionally, respondent submitted records showing that the claimant filed for unemployment benefits on the 31 st day of January, 2014, and the claimant checked the box that 13

14 he quit his employment for health reasons. Claimant also stated that he did not quit on the advice of a doctor and that he had been released by a doctor and that he withdrew from the labor market due to a personal disabling condition. (Resp. #2, P ) ADJUDICATION The Claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence, that he is entitled to compensation benefits. In determining whether claimant has sustained his burden of proof, the Commission shall review the evidence impartially, without giving the benefit of the doubt to either party. Ark. Code Ann Wade v. Mr. Cavanough s, 298 Ark. 364, 768 S.W.2d 521 (1989). The alleged compensable injuries must also be established by objective medical findings. Ark. Code. Ann (4) (d). Objective findings are those findings which cannot come under the control of the patient. Ark. Code Ann (16). 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. Ark. Code Ann (16) (ii) (a). Here the issues that are currently before us are Temporary Total Disability, additional medical benefits, and attorney fees. Temporary total disability is that period within the healing period in which an employee suffers a total incapacity to earn wages. Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department v. Breshears, 272 Ark. App. 244, 613 S.W.2d 392 (1981); Johnson v. Rapid Die and Molding, 46 Ark. App. 244, 878 S.W2d 790 (1984). From the record it appears that the claimant left respondent's employment on December 12, 2012, either quitting 14

15 or being terminated for cause for being consistently late to work. Claimant apparently was working a paper route while working for respondent and continued to work the paper route for a short period of time after his termination from respondent, but the cost of gas prevented the route from being profitable and he quit. Claimant applied for unemployment benefits and placed a check mark on his application that he had quit his employment due to health reasons, but not based upon the advice of a doctor. Disability means incapacity because of injury to earn, in the same or any other employment, the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of the injury. The Commission may consider the claimant s physical capabilities and evaluate his ability to engage in gainful employment. The claimant bears the burden of proving both that he remains within his healing period and, in addition, suffers a total incapacity to earn pre-injury wages in the same or other employment. Palazol v. Nelms Chevrolet, 46 Ark. App. 130, 870 S.W. 2d 938 (1994). In the present matter, the claimant contends that he injured the finger on his right hand while hanging chickens on a moving line where the chickens were hung by their feet on a shackle and his finger got stuck in the shackle during the hanging process. Claimant reported his injury to his middle finger on the right hand on January 18, 2011, and the diagnosis on the Tyson Occupational Injury form shows right middle finger stiffness and sprain. Claimant was initially treated with ice and heat and later received physical therapy. Claimant denied that there was any improvement, but the River Valley Medical Center Physical Therapy Discharge Summary provided that the patient was pain free when not at work, but has pain, but less while using his 15

16 hand and finger at work and this report was dated April 29, Later on July 23, 2012, claimant presented to Doctor William G. Barron and Doctor Barron opined that his finger will be fine and mostly healed and released him to regular duty. Claimant s last day of work for the respondent was December 12, 2012, due to the fact that the plant had changed the shift time to start an hour earlier, twice according to the claimant's testimony, and claimant had difficulty in getting to work at the time required and claimant either quit or was terminated for cause for failing to report to work on time. Later on the 18 th day of December 2012, the claimant again presented to Doctor Barron and the doctor found that there was no swelling of the right finger, negative x-rays and that there was a full range of motion and the claimant was again released to return to work. Still later on January 9, 2013, claimant presented to Doctor Owen Kelley and the report provided that the symptoms started two years ago and the pain is mild and intermittent and on January 31, 2013, Doctor Kelley provided a work release form that stated that the claimant was able to return to full activities at work with no restrictions. On March 14, 2013, Claimant presented to Doctor Michael Moore, and Doctor Moore opined that the claimant could return to work on March 15 th of 2013, with no pushing and pulling over 10 lbs. with his right hand and that he should wear a splint. On May 22, 2013, Doctor Moore submitted an operative report for the surgery that occurred and on June 6, 2013, Doctor Moore opined that claimant could return to work but there could be no use of the right hand. A Functional Capacity Exam was performed on September 16, 2013, and the results indicated a reliable effort was put forth in 48 of 50 consistency 16

17 measures within expected limits. The claimant demonstrated the ability to perform lifting /carrying of up to 50 lbs. on a frequent basis and up to 20lbs. on a constant basis. Claimant also demonstrated a maximal RUE lift of 25lbs. and a maximal LUE of 45 lbs. In regard to the RUE, the claimant reported pain when trying to maintain his grip on the weight but made no outward adjustments with his hand on the weight. His lifts were smooth with no visible pain behaviors. An MRI report dated November 14, 2013, provided that there was no evidence for fluid collection within the flexor tendons and that there is minimal peripheral enhancement seen volar to the flexor tendon of the long finger at the level of the PIP joint, no significant tensonovitis and no evidence for a tendon rupture. Later on January 27 th, 2014, the claimant underwent a right long finger flexor tenosynovectomy, a FDS tendon slip excision, and placement of the digit widget, and Doctor Moore stated that claimant could miss work through January 29, 2014, and return to work on January 30, Doctor Moore opined that on the 24 th day of March, 2014 claimant had reached his MMI with an impairment of the right finger of 27% and the impairment of the right hand is 5%. Claimant returned to Doctor Moor s office on the 13 th day of October, 2015, and Doctor Moore opined that the claimant only lacks about 15 degrees of full extension and that it would be very difficult to improve to a full extension. I find that claimant s employment ended with the respondent on December 12, 2012, either due to the fact that the claimant quit or that the respondent terminated the claimant for cause due to the claimant failing to appear at work at the assigned time. Further, I find that the claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that there are objective medical findings 17

18 that claimant was temporary and totally disabled and unable to work pursuant to Ark. Code Ann , from the dates of May 22, 2013, up to June 6, 2013, the recovery time after the first surgery, and for the dates of January 27, 2014, up through January 29 th, 2014, the recovery period of time after the second surgery, due to the opinion of Doctor Moore. Besides these specific dates, claimant was available to work, sometimes with restricted or light duty, based upon the opinion of Doctor Moore. Claimant is also entitled to the appropriate attorney fees as spelled out in Ark. Code Ann (a). Doctors Kirkland, Barron, Kelley, and Moore, at all times with the exception of the period immediately after the surgeries, all found issues regarding the finger but that these issues would not prevent the claimant from working and they returned the claimant to work, many times without any limitations. However, Doctor Moore did finally perform two surgeries and there was a recovery period after each. In regard to additional medical treatment, employers must promptly provide such medical services which may be reasonably necessary in connection with an employee s compensable injury. Ark. Code Ann (a). However injured employees have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that medical treatment is reasonably necessary for treatment of the compensable injury. Norma Betty v. Ben Pearson, Inc., Workers Compensation Commission, February 17, 1989 (Claim No. D612291). Normally, in assessing whether a given medical procedure is reasonably necessary for the treatment of the compensable injury, we analyze both the proposed procedure and the condition it is sought to remedy. Deborah Jones v. Seba, Inc., Full Workers Compensation Commission, December 13, 1989, 18

19 (Claim No. D511255) Employers are not required to pay medical expenses for the evaluation and treatment of conditions unrelated to the compensable injury, except to the extent necessary to accomplish treatment of the injury. Likewise, employers are not required to pay to rule out with absolute certainty the possibility of non-compensable causes of the complaints. Jeffery Motes v. Campbell Soup Co., Full Workers Compensation Commission, May 15, 1985 (Claim No. D401646). In the present matter, I find that the respondent has provided the appropriate medical care and that the claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that additional medical treatment is in fact required. After reviewing the evidence impartially, and without giving the benefit of the doubt to either party, I find that the claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to temporary total disability for the specific days of recovery after the two surgeries as opined by Doctor Moore, along with the associated attorney fees, and has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to any additional medical treatment. IT IS SO ORDERED. James D. Kennedy Administrative Law Judge 19