04/01/2015
.evidene the Cormlission fmds that Petitioner failed to
estaJiish that his work activities. were. repetitive .in nature and that; as a resilt of tlose woiK. .
activities he suffred a compensable work accidenh.I the form of a repetitive trauma 'Le. .
bilateral cit'pal tmme1
Category: Panel
08/01/2023
duplicative benefits. The Commission observes the two decisions
are mutually exclusive and fail to resolve the carriers intervening accident dispute.
We begin with a review of the applicable standard. Intervening accidents are evaluated
under a but for standard
Every natural consequence that flows
Category: Panel
02/01/2017
spines which he would relate to the January
21 2015 work accident. He further noted that had the January 21 2015 incident involved a significant trauma he
questioned why Petitioner did not have immediate pain. He noted that any surgery at this point would be elective; in
terms of the main consequence
Category: Panel
03/01/2018
of Petitioner's cervical spine.
Every natural consequence that flows from an injury that arose out of and in the course of one's
empioyment is compensable under the Act absent the occurrence of an independent intervening
accident that breaks the chain of causation between the work-related injury and
Category: Panel
06/01/2013
subject to any apportionment. On October 14 2002 applicant filed a Petition to Reopen for New and Further Disability claiming to have developed injury to her psyche as a compensable consequence of her originally pled orthopedic injuries. Dr. Capen had referred her for psychiatric treatment in his
Category: Panel
03/01/2023
contributing factor in the onset. The Arbitrator finds
that the medical expert evidence supports causal connection of the functional movement disorder to the
accident.
Every natural consequence that flows from an injury that arose out of and in the course of one's employment is
compensable under the Act absent
Category: Panel
01/01/2013
that the anterior talofibular ligament tear was "not of clinical consequence" and could be managed conservatively. In his view the "primary issue" was the talar neck bony contusion. He prescribed a CT scan "to ensure there is no subtle talar leck fracture at this juncture." With respect to work
Category: Panel
01/01/2012
on February 18 2004 and his fifth surgery was a second cervical fusion at C3-C6 at the hand of Dr. Sprich on November 11 2004. These surgeries were found compensable via the prior Arbitration Decision. After the initial hearing on September 19 2005 Petitioner continued to have pain around the
Category: Panel
06/01/2023
law reverses the Decision of the Arbitrator
as stated below and otherwise affirms and adopts the Statement of Facts of the Arbitrator which
is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
The Commission finds that the Petitioner failed to prove he sustained a compensable
accident and reverses the
Category: Panel
02/01/2017
was any reason for another CT scan of the lumbar spine because
the previous CT scan showed a solid fusion.
Respondent's Exhibit No. 5 p. 29.
Petitioner
required no restrictions and needed no treatment to his cervical spine as a consequence of his
work injury. Respondent's Exhibit No. 5 p. 29
Category: Panel