STENO IS IN THE HOUSE | ||
StenoDrills.com
| Three Worker's Compensation CasesBuy steno drill CDs at StenoDrills.com THE REFEREE: On the Herman matter please. Do you anticipate a nonappearance in this case? MR. LEVINE: I don't anticipate anything. I've never had any contact with the gentleman. I know that no answer has been filed. I haven't had contact with him. THE REFEREE: Is Monroe Herman in the hearing room? Do you have any exhibits to be marked? MR. LEVINE: Yes. We have the first hearing submission report which contains the doctor's approval of a job and the notice of the offer of a job to the claimant and a description of the job and the other pertinent documents requested. THE REFEREE: What are you going to be moving for? MR. LEVINE: It's a suspension. THE REFEREE: The record will reflect that a Referee's notice of hearing was sent to the claimant on February 27, but was not returned undeliverable. If you know, is that the most recent address that you have? MR. LEVINE: That is. THE REFEREE: There has been no answer filed by the claimant. The address listed on the petition is the same as in the notice of compensation payable. Go ahead, Mr. Levine. MR. LEVINE: We would offer the medical report of Dr. A. R. Stamos dated November 12, 1991, along with the doctor's physical capacity checklist. Also there is a letter from Dr. Stamos dated December 17, 1991, acknowledging the doctor's approval of a job description. There is a letter or a job description contained in the packet dated 12/1/91 from the employer here outlining the job, and finally a letter dated January 9, 1992, from the employer to the claimant as to the availability of the job. There is a certified receipt signed by the claimant of the job notice. THE REFEREE: We'll make that part of the record as Defendant's Exhibit 1,the first hearing submission; Defendant's Exhibit 2, the doctor's report; Defendant's Exhibit 3, the December 17, '91, report; Defendant's Exhibit 4, the December 9, 1991, letter to Dr. Stamos; Defendant's Exhibit 5, the 12/1/91 letter from Lerner Services and Supply; and finally Defendant's Exhibit 6, the January 9, 1992, letter to the claimant. (At this time Defendant's Exhibits Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 were marked for identification.) MR. LEVINE: That's all. Based upon those documents, we move for the petition for suspension to be granted. THE REFEREE: As of what date? MR. LEVINE: As of the date of notice of the job which was 12/1/91. THE REFEREE: The motion is granted. Thank you. MR. LEVINE: Thank you. (At this time the hearing in the above-captioned matter was concluded.)
THE REFEREE: We're on the Stedmore matter please. Let's open the record. This is your petition. Will you bring me up-to-date in this matter please. MR. SHARPLER: This is a petition for review filed by the claimant. Originally, he was injured on August 14, 1990. He was seriously injured. A notice of compensation payable was entered into; and then beginning in October of 1991 or shortly before that, a psychiatric and emotional element entered into the case. The claimant was psychiatrically admitted to the Mercy Hospital of Nanticoke. He has since been receiving psychiatric and psychological counseling; and the expense associated with that treatment, the medical bills for that treatment, have been submitted to the workmen’s' compensation carrier. They have been denied as being unrelated or not causally related to the original injury and preceded the filing of the claim; and we intend to present the claimant, as well as psychiatric testimony, establishing a causal relationship between the psychiatric and psychological treatment and the original work injury. THE REFEREE: The original injury arose out of a fall, right? MR. SHARPLER: That's correct. THE REFEREE: What is the nature of the continuing, if any, physical problems? MR. SHARPLER: He continues to have physical problems. His physician is Dr. Alfred Daimler. Dr. Daimler has outlined those in a number of reports. He has recovered to the extent that Dr. Daimler would permit a return to a sedentary type of employment, but there hasn't been any job or work availability -- THE REFEREE: My question is: What is the nature of the physical problems that the claimant continues to suffer from, if any? MR. SHARPLER: I do not have that, other than the report of Dr. Daimler. THE REFEREE: This psychiatric condition was not something that was initially compensable or didn't start out that way; is that accurate? MR. SHARPLER: No. It was an onset of a problem subsequent to the physical injury. THE REFEREE: What doctor are you relying on? MR. SHARPLER: He is seen at the Northeast Counseling Service, and there are three physicians there: Dr. Albert, Dr. Babich, and Dr. Jorgenson. All of those are psychiatric physicians. Each have examined the claimant at one time or another. Right now, he is under the care of Dr. Jorgenson. We have listed Dr. Jorgenson as our expert witness, but it may be that either Dr. Albert or Dr. Babich could be substituted for the medical witness. THE REFEREE: Did you have the claimant examined for this problem? MS. FARMER: No, we have not, Your Honor. We were discussing this before the hearing. We would like to have the claimant come to the Philadelphia area, but we will try to make it closer. THE REFEREE: Let's arrange that as soon as possible. MS. FARMER: Okay. THE REFEREE: Just from what you told me, Mr. Sharpler, and the information that I have, it appears that you have the burden of proof. MR. SHARPLER: Yes. I agree. THE REFEREE: So you will go ahead with your deposition. MR. SHARPLER: Yes, sir. THE REFEREE: We will take the claimant's testimony, if necessary. Do you plan to present the claimant? MR. SHARPLER: Probably. I think it's a medical issue, but we may present the claimant and his wife. THE REFEREE: Okay. Claimant is still being paid right now? MR. SHARPLER: Yes. He is receiving compensation pursuant to the notice of compensation payable. THE REFEREE: Anything else? Is this all the bills to date? MR. SHARPLER: Those are all the bills I have to date. I don't believe there are any others, but these are the bills to date. They may not be current because he continues to receive psychological testing on a weekly basis; so the most current that I have is through December 31, 1991. THE REFEREE: Thank you very much. (At this time the hearing in the above-captioned matter was concluded.)
THE REFEREE: Good afternoon. Let's open the record. This is your petition. You want to tell me about it. MS. MCDONALD: This is a petition that we filed for reinstatement of benefits or in the alternative a petition to set aside a final receipt. What happened here is there have been several injuries. I think this is where there may be a little bit of disagreement between our file and the file that Mr. Miscowicz has. The original injury was in 1981. There have been several reoccurrences since then. There is one in '82, '83, two in '85, and the last one in '88. Each time they have entered into apparently another agreement that this was a recurrence. There was another injury, a recurrence of this, in September of '91; and the claimant was denied benefits based upon Section 315 saying that it was beyond the three-year statute of limitations. THE REFEREE: Were there periods of disability in each of the years that you mentioned? MS. MCDONALD: They were always for a limited period of disability. THE REFEREE: Was there compensation paid in the years that you mentioned? MS. MCDONALD: Yes. Compensation was paid. It may have been originally that he was given sick benefits; and then eventually, those were reimbursed, and he was given workers' compensation benefits after that. THE REFEREE: And the most recent period was in '88? MS. MCDONALD: That's correct. Then there was a supplemental agreement. THE REFEREE: Does someone have a copy of that? I don't. MS. MCDONALD: I have it. MR. MISCOWICZ: There is one attached to the first hearing submission. MS. MCDONALD: I have an extra copy if you need that. THE REFEREE: It says claimant returned to work at no loss of earnings, but it doesn't speak to the termination versus suspension or whatever else. It doesn't really say anything. MS. MCDONALD: No, it doesn't. Actually, I tried to work this out, but I was told they are treating this like a final receipt. That's why they denied it. THE REFEREE: Who is treating what as a final receipt? MS. MCDONALD: They are treating this - THE REFEREE: The supplemental agreement? MS. MCDONALD: Yes. He did return to work then; and he, actually as of now, believes he can return to work sometime in April or May. We may be looking at this as less than 25 weeks. THE REFEREE: When was the last payment of compensation, the last month? MR. MISCOWICZ: The last payment was August. MS. MCDONALD: The agreement is August 2. I think the last payment was actually June. MR. MISCOWICZ: June 28 of '88. THE REFEREE: Are you still putting forth the statute of limitations? MR. MISCOWICZ: Yes; the three years. THE REFEREE: Based upon? MR. MISCOWICZ: Based upon the fact that the claimant was able to return to work; and even though we don't have a final receipt, the position of the employer would be that employment was terminated as of -THE REFEREE: What is that based on? MR. MISCOWICZ: On the acknowledgements of an agreement signed by the claimant that he was able to return to work without a loss of earning. THE REFEREE: But a return to work without a loss of earnings isn't responsive to the issue of whether a person has residuals. It can still be suspended. It doesn't speak to that. MR. MISCOWICZ: I understand that. That is apparently the issue. MS. MCDONALD: There are obviously residuals here. THE REFEREE: Were medical bills paid? MS. MCDONALD: Up until recently, the medical bills had been paid. MR. MISCOWICZ: I think there would be an obligation to pay the medical bills anyway, even if it was beyond the three years. THE REFEREE: I understand that. I'm only curious. I only asked the question to see whether, in fact, the claimant had been treated for this. MS. MCDONALD: The bills I gave you today are all outstanding. THE REFEREE: You say there is or is not an anticipated return to work? MS. MCDONALD: There is an anticipated return to work. THE REFEREE: When is that? MS. MCDONALD: Possibly April or May. The claimant has to meet with Dr. Durban again to see whether or not he will be able to return to work. He hasn't worked since October 1 of '91. THE REFEREE: What doctor are you going to rely on? MS. MCDONALD: Dr. Terrence Durban and also possibly Dr. Guzman. I'm not sure. THE REFEREE: It looks like it will be beyond the six months. What else do you want to tell me? MR. MISCOWICZ: Just that we are in the process of scheduling the examination of Dr. Danners, and that should be set up by the end of the week, and that should be scheduled through the claimant's attorney. MS. MCDONALD: I expected to have the report of Dr. Durban today. It was in the mail, but it wasn't received today; so hopefully I will have it by Monday. THE REFEREE: Mr. Miscowicz has indicated a comp rate of 221.50 based upon an average weekly wage of 332.25. MS. MCDONALD: I don't have anything indicating -- I didn't have the average weekly wage, but I did have the comp rate. THE REFEREE: Is there anything else now? You ought to have your medicals done by the next hearing. Thank you very much. (At this time the hearing in the above-scheduled matter was concluded.) | |
