No. A: Independent medical examination report by Dr. David Anslinger
No. B: Certified mail receipt of notice of this hearing sent to Radiologic Imaging Consultants at their last known address from the Division's file
No. C: Notice of Services Provided and Request for Direct Payment Lien of Radiologic Imaging Consultants, dated June 13, 2003, and filed with the Division on June 16, 2003 indicating a total bill of $\ 192.96
Joint Exhibit:
Roman Numeral I: Stipulation for Compromise Settlement which has been executed by Mr. Barclay (the claimant), Attorney for Claimant Richard Gartner, and Attorney for Employer/Insurer Brian Dean as a resolution of this case by a compromise
Caleb Barclay, the claimant, testified that he has seen the Stipulation for Compromise Settlement (Roman Numeral I) and has gone over it with his attorney. This occurred probably about a month ago, the claimant stated. Barclay agreed that the reason they have not been able to go forward with the settlement with the employer/insurer is because of a medical lien, the issue before the court today. Barclay agreed that he has been informed by his attorney that his attorney has attempted to contact Radiologic Imaging Consultants on numerous occasions and they have failed to respond to the Claimant's Attorney's inquiries.
Barclay stated that his answers reflected in the Stipulation for Compromise Settlement would be the same as he had answered when he signed the settlement document.
Documentary evidence presented in this hearing, in addition to the Stipulation for Compromise Settlement, consisted of an Independent Medical Examination report by a Dr. David Anslinger, M.D. (No. A) concerning evaluation of Caleb Barclay for injuries sustained in a work related accident on 08/14/01. The doctor discussed the 08/14/01 work related accident and briefly discussed the treatment the claimant received, including that x-rays had been taken at St. Joseph's Hospital; in his discussion under the section "X-Ray Review;", Dr. Anslinger wrote: "8/14/01: Left proximal tibial fracture with associated fibula fracture". Dr. Anslinger's diagnosis for the 08/14/01 work related injury was - a left proximal tibial plateau fracture with assoicated fibula fracture with open reduction and internal fixation of left tibial plateau fracture and fibula fracture performed on 08/15/01. Dr. Anslinger opined that it was his "medical and neurological opinion that within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that this patient's knee injury was sustained while at work and is a substantial factor in his disability". The doctor wrote that Barclay was at maximum medical improvement for the 08/14/01 work related injury, and assessed permanent partial disability for the injury of - 10\% permanent partial disability of the left lower extremity.
Another document in evidence was the lien filed by Radiologic Imaging Consultants (No. C) which reflected services of up to possibly six (6) x-rays being performed on patient Caleb Barclay at St. Joseph's Hospital on 08/14/01 and on 08/15/01, and reflecting a total bill of $\ 192.96.
In evidence was the original Certified Mail Receipt (No. B) reflecting that Radiologic Imaging Consultants was sent
notice of the 09/26/05 hearing at the Division of Workers' Compensation by certified mail at the last known address reflected in the Division of Workers' Compensation's file. Radiologic Imaging Consultants was thrice called at the beginning of this hearing and did not answer, was not present, and made no effort to respond about the hearing setting.
No other documentary evidence was presented in the hearing (i.e. no medical records of the treatment rendered for the 08/14/01 work related injury).
"In Martin v. Mid-America Farm Lines, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 105 (Mo. banc 1989), our Supreme Court stated that "when [employee] testimony accompanies the bills, which the employee identifies as being related to and the product of her injury, and when the bills relate to the professional services rendered as shown by the medical records in evidence, a sufficient factual basis exists for the commission to award compensation." Id. at 111-12[7] (emphasis added)." Meyer v. Superior Insulating Tape, 882 S.W.2d 735, 738 (Mo.App. E.D. 1994)
It is found that with no treatment records for the 08/14/01 work related injury in evidence, a determination as to the number of x-rays performed on 08/014/01 and if any were performed on 08/15/01 would be speculative; Dr. Anslinger makes reference to x-rays being performed, but the indication in the "X-Ray Review:" section of his report is possibly a review of only one x-ray. It is found that there is an insufficient basis upon which to award compensation for the bills listed in the lien filed by Radiologic Imaging Consultants. Consequently compensation for the Radiologic Imaging Consultants bill is denied.
It is further found that there is sufficient competent evidence to support approval of the settlement between the claimant and the employer/insurer in this case for the 08/14/01 work related injury, and the Stipulation for Compromise Settlement will be approved.
Date: October 5, 2005
Made by: /s/ LESLIE E. H. BROWN
LESLIE E. H. BROWN
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Workers' Compensation
A true copy: Attest:
/s/ PATRICIA "PAT" SECREST
Patricia "Pat" Secrest
Director
Division of Workers' Compensation