In Borkovec v. Dish Network, No. 17-0743 (Iowa App. May 16, 2018), the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the commissioner which had held that a work injury was the cause of claimant's opioid dependency, but concluding that permanency was not ripe because claimant had not reached the end of his healing period. The records presented at hearing indicated that if claimant had treatment for his addiction, his function might improve. The hearing deputy had concluded that claimant was permanently and totally disabled and the appeal decision changed that to a running healing period. Following a petition for judicial review, the district court reversed the commissioner's decision and found that claimant was permanently and totally disabled. The Court of Appeals reinstates the decision of the commissioner.
Claimant was involved in a serious auto accident and was provided large impairment ratings by the doctors who opined on the issue. Dr. Kuhnlein concluded that claimant needed a comprehensive pain management program and also found that claimant had not reached MMI for his opioid addiction. He recommended that claimant be weaned from opioids. The hearing deputy concluded that claimant was permanently and totally disabled from his physical injuries, but had not achieved MMI for his mental conditions or his opioid addiction. On appeal, as noted above, the decision was reversed, and claimant found to be in a running healing period. The district court held that treatment of claimant's opioid addiction would not significantly increase his physical functioning and ability to work and therefore reversed the commissioner's decision.
The Court of Appeals noted that permanency could not be determined until claimant's disability had stabilized., i.e. when it is medically indicated that significant improvement from the injury is not anticipated. The court concluded that the appeal decision was supported by substantial evidence because doctors, including claimant's IME doctor, had found that many of the restrictions were because of claimant's opioid addiction. The decision of the district court was reversed.
Judge Danilson concurred with the decision "reluctantly." The judge found that if claimant made a good faith effort to overcome his opioid addiction, he should be found at maximum medical improvement, but that "Borkovec should not be held hostage endlessly on some slight glimmer of hope he may be employable with very substantial work restrictions in the future."
Claimant was involved in a serious auto accident and was provided large impairment ratings by the doctors who opined on the issue. Dr. Kuhnlein concluded that claimant needed a comprehensive pain management program and also found that claimant had not reached MMI for his opioid addiction. He recommended that claimant be weaned from opioids. The hearing deputy concluded that claimant was permanently and totally disabled from his physical injuries, but had not achieved MMI for his mental conditions or his opioid addiction. On appeal, as noted above, the decision was reversed, and claimant found to be in a running healing period. The district court held that treatment of claimant's opioid addiction would not significantly increase his physical functioning and ability to work and therefore reversed the commissioner's decision.
The Court of Appeals noted that permanency could not be determined until claimant's disability had stabilized., i.e. when it is medically indicated that significant improvement from the injury is not anticipated. The court concluded that the appeal decision was supported by substantial evidence because doctors, including claimant's IME doctor, had found that many of the restrictions were because of claimant's opioid addiction. The decision of the district court was reversed.
Judge Danilson concurred with the decision "reluctantly." The judge found that if claimant made a good faith effort to overcome his opioid addiction, he should be found at maximum medical improvement, but that "Borkovec should not be held hostage endlessly on some slight glimmer of hope he may be employable with very substantial work restrictions in the future."
Comments
Post a Comment