| FINAL AWARD ALLOWING COMPENSATION (Modifying Award and Decision of Administrative Law Judge) |
| Employee: | James Dunning |
| Employer: | State of Missouri, Department of Conservation (Settled) |
| Insurer: | Self-Insured (Settled) |
| Additional Party: | Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund |
| This workers’ compensation case is submitted to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) for review as provided by § 287.480 RSMo. We have reviewed the evidence, read the parties’briefs, and considered the whole record. Pursuant to § 286.090 RSMo, we modify the award and decision of the administrative law judge. We adopt the findings, conclusions, decision, and award of the administrative law judge to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, decision, and modifications set forth below. |
| Preliminaries |
| The parties asked the administrative law judge to determine the following issues: (1) medical causation; and (2) Second Injury Fund liability for either permanent total or permanent partial disability.The administrative law judge rendered the following determinations: (1) the July 22, 2010, accident was the prevailing factor in causing the resulting lumbar strain and disability, and the lumbar strain, medical care, and medical treatment for the lumbar strain, and the resulting disability were medically causally related to the July 22, 2010, work accident and injury; and (2) employee is permanently and totally disabled as a result of the combination of his preexisting injuries and conditions and the low back injury caused by the July 22, 2010, accident and injury.Employee filed a timely application for review with the Commission alleging the administrative law judge erred in finding that employee reached maximum medical improvement on September 23, 2013.For the reasons stated below, we modify the award of the administrative law judge as to the issue of maximum medical improvement. |
| Discussion |
| Maximum medical improvement |
| The determination of when employee reached maximum medical improvement is important in this case because it controls the timing of the commencement of weekly permanent total disability benefits:Courts have used various terms to determine when an employee’s condition has reached the point where further progress is not expected, |
Injury No. 10-066731
Employee: James Dunning
- 2 -
including the term maximum medical improvement. Vinson v. Curators of the University of Missouri, 822 S.W.2d 504, 508 (Mo. App. E.D. 1991)(interpreting a doctor's testimony of employee's maximum treatment potential to mean maximum medical improvement); Cooper, 955 S.W.2d at 575 (using the term maximum medical progress to define the point where no further progress is expected for an employee's condition).
After reaching the point where no further progress is expected, it can be determined whether there is either permanent partial or permanent total disability and benefits may be awarded based on that determination. One cannot determine the level of permanent disability associated with an injury until it reaches a point where it will no longer improve with medical treatment. ...
Although the term maximum medical improvement is not included in the statute, the issue of whether any further medical progress can be reached is essential in determining when a disability becomes permanent and thus, when payments for permanent partial or permanent total disability should be calculated.
Cardwell v. Treasurer of Mo., 249 S.W.3d 902, 910 (Mo. App. 2008).
Employee argues that we should find that he achieved maximum medical improvement on November 24, 2010, when he was first seen by his evaluating expert, Dr. Annamaria Guidos. While employee makes a rather strong argument that his condition did not actually improve after that date, we cannot ignore Dr. Guidos's unequivocal testimony that employee was not at maximum medical improvement when she first examined him. On the other hand, we agree that Dr. Guidos's opinion that employee did not achieve maximum medical improvement until she saw him on September 23, 2013, is not particularly persuasive, especially where the evidence reveals that employee's pain was worse on that date than on November 24, 2010.
After careful consideration, we find most persuasive the opinion from employer's expert, Dr. Brett Taylor, with regard to the issue of maximum medical improvement. In his report dated February 15, 2011, Dr. Taylor ruled out the prospect of additional back surgery, indicating his belief that employee might not survive another surgery in light of his preexisting conditions of ill-being. In our view, it was at that point that it became clear that employee's condition referable to the work injury was permanent. Accordingly, we find that employee reached maximum medical improvement on February 15, 2011. In order to account for the 50 weeks of permanent partial disability resulting from the work injury, the Second Injury Fund's liability for weekly permanent total disability benefits begins 50 weeks from that date, or on January 31, 2012.