ACCforum: deciding Cover on claim after degeneration - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

deciding Cover on claim after degeneration Bowerman - F402745 Good to look at when degeneration is involved.

#1 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 16 December 2009 - 01:31 PM

Therefore, I find the claimant suffered a compensable workrelated injury, supported by objective medical findings.


Furthermore, even though the Majority disregards
medical testimony, it is interesting that they substitutes
their own medical opinion. The Majority specifically found
that the failure of Dr. Lenington’s spinal injections, given
to relieve the claimant’s symptoms, would be contrary to a
facet or discal injury. Apparently, the Majority bases his
entire decision on whether or not the claimant sustained a
facet or discal injury. It is obvious that the claimant did
not sustain a facet or discal injury, nor does the claimant
make the argument that he sustained a facet or discal
Bowerman - F402745 -18-
injury. The claimant sustained a lumbar strain. The majority
of the treating physicians diagnosed the claimant as having
a lumbar strain. The Majority’s failure to identify that the
claimant sustained any injury is contrary to every medical
opinion and therefore arbitrary.
It is evident that the claimant sustained a
compensable injury in the form of a lumbar strain. While the
claimant admittedly had few objective findings, the fact
remains that he sustained a minor injury in the form of a
strain. The existence of a lumbar strain is evidenced by
objective medical findings and medical opinions of several
treating physicians. The claimant was repeatedly tested to
make sure that his complaints were valid, and every doctor
concluded that the claimant had a legitimate injury with
symptoms. Additionally, the claimant had no recent prior
history of back pain, and after the accident there is no
indication that his symptoms ever resolved or that he had
exited his healing period. In fact, Dr. Holder had just
noted that the claimant had not reached MMI when the
respondents terminated his medical treatment.

That is just part of it and a good read if you get a decision from the ACC saying that degeneration, mental injury or some other reason.

notice that the injured did not argue about having another injury but argued that he had substained a covered injury.

Share this topic:

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users