Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
ILLINOIS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
NOTICE OF 19(b) ARBITRATOR DECISION

SPINDEL,  SONYA Case# 1.3WCQ278È5
Employee/...
STATE 0F ILLINOIS )

  

E] Injured Workers’ Benefit Fund (5431))

 
    
  

ìss- E] Rate Adjustment Fund (gs(g))
COUNTY 0...
On this date,  un employee-employer relationshîp dîd exist between Petitioner and Respondent. 

On this date,  Petitioner ...
13 WC 27855 Spindel v.  CTA

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

Sonya Spindel, 
Petitioner, 
vs.  No.  ...
13 WC 27855 Spindel v.  CT A

lower back along with numbness,  tingling,  and radiating pain into her right toes,  as well...
13 WC 27855 Spindel v.  CTA

retumed to Dr.  Singh.  She had oompleted an FCE and work conditioning.  Dr.  Singh released
...
13 WC 27855 Spindel v.  CTA

condition o!  ili-being is causally related to the injury,  the Arbitrator makes the followin...
13 WC 27855 Spindel v.  CTA

of cold packs,  followed by heat packs may be more effective than acetarninophen and ibuprofe...
13 WC 27855 Spindel V.  CT A

2014 and left claiming she could not do the work.  There is no indication in the record that...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Bus maintenance worker falls and injures lower back, right arm and left leg

ARBITRATION DECISION.pdf
Arbitrator decision

  • Be the first to comment

Bus maintenance worker falls and injures lower back, right arm and left leg

  1. 1. ILLINOIS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF 19(b) ARBITRATOR DECISION SPINDEL, SONYA Case# 1.3WCQ278È5 Employee/ Petifioner CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY EmpIoyer/ Respondant On 12/7/2015, an arbitration decision on this case was filed with the Illinois Workers‘ Compensation Commission in Chicago, a copy of whîch is enclosed. If the Commission rcviews this award, înterest of 0.41% shall accrue from the date lìsted above to the day before the date of payment; however, if an employee’s appeal results in cìther no change or a decrease in this award, interest shall . not accrue. A copy of this decision is mailed to the following parties: 1067 ANKIN lAW OFFICE LLC SCOTT G GOLDsTElN 162 W GRAND AVE SUITE 1810 CHICAGO. IL 60654 0515 CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY ANDREW ZASUWA 587 W LAKE 3T GTH FL CHICAGO, IL 60661
  2. 2. STATE 0F ILLINOIS ) E] Injured Workers’ Benefit Fund (5431)) ìss- E] Rate Adjustment Fund (gs(g)) COUNTY 0F COOK ) C] Seeond Injury Fund (58(e)18) None of the above ILLINOIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMJVIISSION ARBITRATION DECISION l9(b) Sonya Spindel Case # L; WC 27855 Employee/ Petitioner v. Consolidated cases: Chicago Transit Authoritx Employer/ Respondent An Applicatlonfor Adjustment 0fClaim was filed in this matter, and a Notice ofHeafing was maìled to each party. The matter was heard by the Honorable Christine Ory, Arbitrator of the Commission, in the city Chicago, on October B, 2015. Afier reviewing al] of the evidence presented, the Arbitrator hereby makes findings on the disputed issues checked below, and attaches those findings to this document. DISPUTED ISSUES Dìseases Act? . E] Was there an employee-employer relationship? . I: Did an accident occur that arose out of and in the course ofPetitionefs employment by Respondent? . E] What was the date ofthe accident? D Was timely notice of the accident given to Respondent? X Is Petîtionefs current condition of iII-being causally related to the injury? . D What were Petitioner's eamings? . D What was Petitionefis age at the time of the accident? . E] What was Petiti0ner's marital status at the time of the accident? J. X Were the medical services that were provided to Petitioner reasonable and necessary? Has Respondent paid all appropriate eharges for all reasonàble and necessary medical services? K. X Is Petitîoner entitled to any prospective medical care? L. X What temporary benefits are in dispute? TPD Maintenance X ‘ITD M. Should penalties or fees be imposed upon Respondent? N. [j Is Respondent due any credit? o. D Other lCArbDac/ Wb) 2/I0 /00 W. Randa/ Mimmo! 138-200 Chicago. IL 60601 3/2/814-661/ Tal/ free 866/3524033 Web site: wwnaiwcailgov Dawnslale radica: Col/ Imvllla 6/8/346- 3450 Pearla 309/6714019 Roc/ dòrd 815/9874292 Sprlng/ ield 217/7854084 “EOÌÙFÌUOW
  3. 3. On this date, un employee-employer relationshîp dîd exist between Petitioner and Respondent. On this date, Petitioner did sustain an accident that arose out of and in the course of employment. Timely notice of this accident was given to Respondent. Petitìoner's current condition ofiIl-being is causally related to the accident. In the year preceding the injury, Petitioner eamed S19,670.00; the average weekly wage was 8380.00. . On the date of accident, Petitioner was 43 years of age, single with 0 dependent children. Respondent has not paìd all reasonable and necessary charges for all reasonable and necessary medical services. Respondent shall be given a credit of S27,866.30 for TTD, S0 for TPD, S0 for maintenance, and S0 for other benefits, for a total credit ofS27,866.30. Respondent is entitled to a credit OfSO under Section 8(j) of the Act. ORDER Temporary Partial Disabilizy Respondent shall pay Petitioner temporary partial disability benefits 01325333 per week for 68 weeks, commencing 09/03/2013 through 03116/2014 and 12/29/2014 through 10/06/2015 as provided in Section 8(a) Medica! benefts Respondent shall pay reasonable and necessary medical services of S4,975.00, as in accordance with in Sections 8(a) and 8.2 of the Act. Respondent shall pay the reasonable and necessary costs related to the revision spinal surgery at L5—S1 as prescribed by Dr. Singh in accordance with 58.2 of the Act. RULES REGARDING Ananas Unless a party files a Petitionjbr Review withìn 30 days afier receìpt of this decision, and perfects a review in accordance with the Act and Rules, then this decision shall be entered as the decision of the Commission. 1 21041201 5 Signature ofArbitmtor Date 1C Arboeel9tb) D53 7 — zms.
  4. 4. 13 WC 27855 Spindel v. CTA BEFORE THE ILLINOIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION Sonya Spindel, Petitioner, vs. No. 13 WC 27855 Chicago Transit Authority, Respondent. / J-/ %3JJììì She retumed to Dr. Mehta on September 3, 2013. She reported the physìcal therapy had helped the neck and shoulder pain. However, petitioner had increased complaints ofpain in her Page 1 of 6
  5. 5. 13 WC 27855 Spindel v. CT A lower back along with numbness, tingling, and radiating pain into her right toes, as well as loss ofbalance. Dr. Mehta ordered an MRI, continued therapy and ordered her otîwork (PX.3). The MRI obtained on September 5, 2013 showed a hemiated disc that measured approxîmately 3-4 mm at the L4-L5 level, and a hemiated disc with extruded nuceleus pulpous L5-S1 that measured 5-6 mm (PX.3). On September 13, 2013 Dr. Mehta ordered right L4-L5, L5-S1 transforaminal epidural injeetions. Petitioner testified her symptoms retumed within one week of the injectîons. On October l, 2013 petitioner retumed to Dr. Mehta, who referred her to Dr. Singh for a surgical consult. On October 15, 2013 petitioner retumed to Dr. Mehta afcer seeing Dr. Singh for the surgical consult (PX.3). injections (Rx.2). Dr. Mehta performed the injections. On November 5, 2013, petitioner reported to Dr. Mehta that she had minimal relief ftom the two injections. Dr. Mehta recommended petitiorier continue with physical therapy and referred her back to Dr. Singh for the surgical consult (PX.2). On November 11, 2013 petitioner retumed to Dr. Singh and reported little relief from the steroid injectîons. surgery was, therefore, scheduled (PX.2). Dr. Singh performed a laminectomy and fiision with cage instrumentation and bone graiì at the L4-5 level on December 3, 2013 (PX.2). Petitioner testified she awoke from the surgery with no feeling in her right leg. the ER. Physical therapy was initiated. Pain medication was prescribed. Petitioner testified her symptoms in her back improved, but she had no feeling in her right leg and also had tingling and numbness which caused her to lose her balance and fall. On January 27, 2014 petitioner retumed to Dr. Singh with similar ongoing complaints. Physical therapy and medication were prescribed. Dr. Singh released her to retum to work with restrictions of ten-pound lifting and pushing restrictions and minimal bending and stooping. Physical therapy and pain medication were continued (PX.2). On April 28, 2014, petitioner retumed to Dr. Singh with similar complaints. Dr. Singh ordered an FCE followed by two to four weeks ofwork conditioning. On lune 6, 2014 petitioner Page 2 of 6
  6. 6. 13 WC 27855 Spindel v. CTA retumed to Dr. Singh. She had oompleted an FCE and work conditioning. Dr. Singh released petitioner to retum to light work rather than sedentary as indicated by the FCE due to petitioner’s inconsistency in the FCE which were attributable to petitioner’s limitations secondary to pain. Dr. Singh also declared petitioner at MMI and released her firom his care (PX.2). On September 4, 2014, petitioner reported she was in s0 much pain she went to the ER at Northwestem. On September 15, 2014 she retumed to Dr. Singh who ordered a CT scan. She retumed to Dr. Singh on September 22, 2014 after obtaining a CT scan. Dr. Singh noted the CT scan showed a solid fusion and released her to retum to work with the same restrictions. He again determined she was at MMI (PX.2) On December 8, 2014 petitioner retumed to Dr. Singh having again being seen at Northwestem ER due to acute back and leg pain. Dr. Singh ordered a MRI and said petitioner now was not at MMI (PX.2). On December 29, 2014 petitioner retumed to Dr. Singh after obtaining an MRI. Dr. Singh indicated the MRI showed a right-sided L5-S1 facet arthropathy with spinal stenosis and recommended a L5-S1 revision laminectomy and ordered her completely off work (PX.2). On January 21, 2014, Dr. Mehta released petitioner to Dr. Singh's care. Dr. Mehta confinned petitionefls ongoing problerns were related to her work injury (RX.3). Petitioner followed up with Dr. Singh on April 13, 2015, Iune 3, 2015 and July 20, 2015. Bach time, Dr. Singh’s findings and recommendations for a L5—S1 laminectomy remained the same. Dr. Singh also determined petitionefs ongoing symptomology was related to the work accident (PX.2). Respondent had petitioner examined by Dr. Wellington ‘Hsu on February 25, 2015 pursuant to 912. Dr. Hsu reviewed the MRI report of September 5, 2013. According to Dr. Hsu the report indicated there was evidence of an L5-S1 subligamentous posterior disc herniation and L4—L5 posterior disc hemiation as well. Dr. Hsu stated petitioner had an aggravation lumbar spondylosis from her work accident. He believed the treatment to date was appropriate (RX. 1). Dr. Hsu concluded petitionefs current symptoms were secondary to the preexisting lumbar spondylosis which were in no way were related to the work accident. He stated, however, petitioner’s aggravation of preexisting lumbar spondylosis at L4-L5 was fiom the work accident (RX. l). Dr. Hsu concluded petitioner could return to work full duty based upon an FCE which indicated petitioner had given a variable effort. Based upon this statement by the therapist, Dr. Hsu concluded the F CE was invalid (RX. l). Petitioner testified her back symptoms gradually improved but the pain down her right leg continued. She is not able to sit or stand for more than 10 to 15 minutes ata time. The pain medication did little to help the symptoms, but did help her sleep.
  7. 7. 13 WC 27855 Spindel v. CTA condition o! ili-being is causally related to the injury, the Arbitrator makes the following conclusions of law: both the 14-5 and L5-S1 level. In fact, the earlier MRI indicated the herniated disc at the L5-S1 level was larger than the L4—L5. For these reasons, the Arbitrator finds petitionefs condition of ili-being ofher lower back and leg, for which Dr. Singh has prescribed revision surgery for the L5-S1 disc, was caused by Page 4 of 6
  8. 8. 13 WC 27855 Spindel v. CTA of cold packs, followed by heat packs may be more effective than acetarninophen and ibuprofen for treatment to the lower back. Furthermore, the yet to be published study showed compressive cryotherapy after ACL reconstruction have better pain relief and less dependence on narcotic use than cryotherpay alone. In support of the Arbitrator’s decîsion with regard to TTD, the Arbitrator makes the following conclusione of law: ’
  9. 9. 13 WC 27855 Spindel V. CT A 2014 and left claiming she could not do the work. There is no indication in the record that the restricted work petitioner was doing fiom Match 17, 2014 to April 3, 2014 exceeded Dr. Singh’s work restrictions. Dr. Singh’s work restrictions remained the same until December 29, 2014, at which time Dr. Singh took petitioner completely off work. She has not been released to return to work since December 29, 2014. Accordingly, the Arbitrator finds petitioner is entitled to 'I"l‘D fiom September 3, 2013 through Match 16, 2014 and firom December 29, 2014 through the date ofhearing of October 6, 2015. This is 68 weeks. Page 6 of 6

×