STENO IS IN THE HOUSE | ||
StenoDrills.com
| Medical Q&A 004BBuy steno drill CDs at StenoDrills.com This is the second part of the three-part drill Medical Q&A 004. Q. Did you then conduct a physical exam; and if you did, what were the significant complaints? A. Yes, I did conduct a physical examination. It was a straightforward orthopedic examination of the upper and lower extremities and the spine, and his exam was completely within the normal limits. He had negative straight leg raising in both lower extremities. He had no motor or sensory findings in either lower extremity. There was no atrophy of the quadriceps or gastrocnemius muscles. Deep tendon reflexes of the knees and ankles were normal and equal. He was able to stand on his heeds and his toes. He had a normal gait. He was able to forward flex at about 80 degrees in his lumbar spine. His cervical spine exam snowed a normal range of motion in terms of flexion and extension and lateral rotation. There was no longitudinal compression into the upper extremities. Both upper extremities revealed a full range of motion and normal motor power with no sensory abnormalities and findings. There was a negative Tinel’s sign in both upper extremities in all appropriate areas, meaning the wrist, elbow, and thoracic outlet region. G. Doctor, were there any objective findings to correlate to Mr. Mason’ subjective complaints? A. No, there were not. Q. Did you obtain any indication from Mr. Mason about his own assessment of functional capacity? A. Yes, I did. Q. What was that? A. He told me that he felt, quote, there was no reason why he couldn’t work, end quote, at a job which was light duty in nature if he were allowed to sit and stand for intervals. Q. Doctor, after that examination, or as part of that examination, did you form an opinion as to his functional capacity? A. Yes, I did. Q. I’m going to show you a document which I’ll have marked as Defendants 3 and ask you if that is the physical capacities form that you completed at that time? A. Yes, it is. Q. What was your opinion, Doctor, as to Mr. Mason’ functional capacity? A. Based on the objective findings, I indicated or my opinion was that I would not restrict him in any way, and given his subjective complaints, basically his statements on history taking, I indicated that he probably should not be doing any repetitive lifting of more than 30 pounds. Q. His subject complaints aside, Doctor, from the objective findings, would you state your opinion as to his functional capacity? A. Once again, I would not restrict him in any way. Q. If I understand correctly, the restrictions that you placed on him were based on his subjective complaints to you. A. That’s correct. Q. Do you have an opinion, Doctor, after your examination and your review of the records as to whether Mr. Mason has fully recovered from his work injury? A. Yes, I do. Q. What is that opinion? A. I believe he is fully recovered from his work injury. Q. Assuming the subjective complaints that he related to you, do you have an opinion as to what the cause of those complaints would be? A. I believe that on a subjective basis the best way to explain those complaints is on the basis of the fact that he had a history of back problems dating back 12 to 15 years prior. Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether the work injury has any correlation to the ongoing subjective complaints? A. Yes, I have an opinion. Q. What is that? A. I don’t believe his work injury has any correlation to his ongoing subjective complaints. Q. Doctor, did you also have been an opportunity to review a variety of job descriptions? A. Yes, I did. MR. BANNON: I’m going to object. They were not provided to me. MR . MILLER: Give me a second. We’ll see. MR. BANNON: They weren’t. Mr. MILLER: No, I believe you. I note there has been an objection to any testimony relative to any job approvals that the Doctor made regarding referrals to Mr. Mason, based on the fact that they were not provided to Counsel for the claimant. At this time I’ll note Counsel’s objection, and I would presume it would be a continuing one to any testimony as to these. MR. BANNON: Can we go off the record. (At this time there was a short discussion held off the record) MR. MILLER: I think the objection has been previously stated and responded to; and just so the record is clear, I’ve shown claimant’s Counsel two pieces of correspondence dated August 12, 1991, and June 13, 1991, directed to his client and referring to various positions. BY MR. MILLER: Q. Doctor, for brevity’s sake, I’m going to ask you if you had a chance to review the following positions: One is a deli clerk with Fuller Markets; the second one is a cleanup person with a machine Shop; the third one is a telemarketer with a telemarketing corporation; the fourth one is an office stockperson with Briggs. The fifth one is a technician. with Jiffy Lube. The next one is a telephone operator with Tanner Company. The next one is as a telemarketer with Martin. The next one is as a production worker with Quality Plastics Products. The next one is a cashier/clerk with modern Quik Marts. I ask you if you reviewed each of those positions in conjunction with the restrictions you placed on Mr. Mason. A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you form an opinion as to whether Mr. Mason could perform each of those positions? A. Yes I did. Q. What was that? A. I felt that he could. Q. Just so I am clear, Doctor, the restrictions that we are talking about are those that are based on his subjective complaints to you; is that correct? A. That’s correct. Q. Doctor, are all the opinions you offered today your opinions to a reasonable degree of medical certainty? A. Yes. MR. MILLER: Cross-examine. |
|
