As noted above, this case was previously heard by the undersigned administrative law judge on August 7, 2008 and a TEMPORARY OR PARTIAL AWARD was issued in this case on September 15, 2008. The evidence submitted at the July 24, 2012 hearing (including the additional evidence submitted on August 23, 2012) was consistent with the TEMPORARY OR PARTIAL AWARD. Therefore, the TEMPORARY OR PARTIAL AWARD is affirmed in its entirety, and same is incorporated herein by reference.
The TEMPORARY OR PARTIAL AWARD contained the following ORDER:
Employer and Insurer are ordered to provide Claimant with all such medical, surgical and other treatment as may reasonably be required to cure and relieve her from the effects of the work accident of March 28, 2006, including, but no (sic) limited to, the lumbar discograms extending from L3 to S1 with post-discogram CT recommended by Dr. Michael Chabot.
No application for review was taken from the September 15, 2008 TEMPORARY OR PARTIAL AWARD.
After the TEMPORARY OR PARTIAL AWARD was issued, Employer scheduled Dr. Anthony Guarino to perform the discogram on October 27, 2008. Claimant contacted Dr. Guarino's office prior to the procedure to inform them that she had previously had an allergic reaction to the dye/contrast normally used in these procedures and other similar procedures (such as CT scans) requiring contrast, so that pre-medication precautions could be taken. No premedication or other precautions were taken and the procedure was done without the dye/contrast. Dr. Guarino's report of October 27, 2008 does not address the fact that contrast was not used, nor does it discuss why contrast was not used. Dr. Guarino's conclusions were as follows:
This patient has lumbar degenerative disc disease. Dr. Chabot asked for a discogram to be performed to help clarify a specific area that could be treated by him. No specific site was identified during the procedure today. No controls were found. Dr. Chabot will decide what to do with this information when the patient presents for further evaluation this day.
Dr. Chabot prepared a report dated October 27, 2008, indicating that the discogram reproduced pain at every level of the lumbar spine and no control level was ever established. Dr. Chabot indicated that the origin of complaints was poorly defined, and with Claimant's history of
depression, he felt there was a strong component of psychosocial issues at play in her subjective complaints. Dr. Chabot recommended Claimant be evaluated for consideration of placement of a spinal cord stimulator as Dr. Street had previously considered, but before doing so, recommended a MMPI to determine if Claimant was actually a candidate for that procedure.
Per Dr. Chabot's recommendation, Employer scheduled an appointment with Dr. Wayne Stillings for MMPI testing and evaluation, but Ms. Beatrice did not attend at her attorney's recommendation.
What transpired after this point is well-summarized by Dr. Highland's deposition testimony as follows:
Q. Doctor, I'm going to pick up where I think we left off in November of 2007. I understand that after that deposition, there was a request by Deborah to revisit your services. And she came back to actually meet with you - let's see-in 2008, seeking your services to perform a surgery that you were thinking might be possible, but hadn't reached a final conclusion yet, is that true?
A. Yes, I believe you are talking about May $19^{\text {th }}, 2008.
Q. Let's see.
A. Actually, there was a phone call on May 12^{\text {th }}, 2008$--.
Q. That's right.
A. --that started that discussio