BCM closes down petitioner's claim for future medical

Beverly N. Masuda successfully limits the Arbitrator's award to elements that were, from the outset, deemed compensable, but avoided prospective medical treatment, including repeat surgery for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and ulnar neuropathy, with its related periods of TTD and medical expenses.

Petitioner, a 45 year old assembler in a production department, claimed injury to both hands due to repetitive work activity. Her manifestation date was February 8, 2001. The employer accepted compensability for bilateral carpal tunnel conditions for which she underwent left and right releases, on August 27, 2004 and April 30, 2005, respectively. Following these releases, however, petitioner continued to complain of symptoms in her hands and also developed symptoms in the left elbow. The treating physician was of the opinion that petitioner did not have a simple case of carpal tunnel syndrome but cervical radiculopathy, a double crush injury, neuritis, and significant neural injury as well. He recommended repeat carpal tunnel releases and cubital tunnel ulnar nerve transposition on the left.

Evidence depositions were taken of the treating physician and one of the two respondent's medical experts. The treating doctor testified that petitioner's carpal tunnel syndrome and ulnar nerve problem was related to repetitive use and aggravation as a result of her work activities. He further testified that petitioner could not perform any job activity which required repetitive lifting over 10 pounds or working in cold weather. The treating physician testified that the recurrence of carpal tunnel syndrome in this case was both unusual and expected.

The respondent's medical expert testified that an on-going carpal tunnel condition was not supported by electrodiagnostic evidence and that, on examination, the petitioner displayed non physiologic behavioral abnormalities. Respondent's expert opined that petitioner was not a candidate for additional surgery, either as it related to her carpal tunnel condition on either side or on her left elbow.

Respondent also submitted the report of a second expert, specifically as it related to the late developing left ulnar condition. This physician, too, opined that the petitioner demonstrated multiple inconsistencies in her examination, that electrodiagnostic testing did not confirm the evidence of ulnar nerve entrapment, and that the ulnar nerve condition was not work-related as petitioner had not worked since 2002.

Petitioner's attorney had moved to set the matter for trial pursuant to the provisions of Section 8(a) and Section 19(b) of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act. However, the respondent was successful in convincing the Arbitrator that there was sufficient evidence to find permanent disability, thus avoiding additional hearings and its related legal costs.

Petitioner's attorney did not file a review, and the award was paid by the Respondent.