Everyone is entitled to an opinion but it’s the Division IME’s which matters . . .

Tina Oestreich and Eric Pollart successfully defended Claimant’s attempt to procure a 45% rating.

Claimant had two admitted injuries for which she treated extensively. The ATP provided a 45% impairment for back, neck and other combined body parts.  The Respondent challenged the rating and the Division IME found there was no impairment “related” to the injuries.  Claimant challenged the opinion with support from the rating ATP, and another provider in the chain of referral.

Tina retained an IME well versed in Level II Accreditation and the AMA Guides who testified in support of the Division IME.  The testimony established that even if the testing of the Division IME showed impairment during an examination, the Division IME has the discretion to determine whether the impairment is related to the work injury and issue a 0% impairment if justified through a causation analysis.  The retention of the expert firmly established that there were no discrepancies in the protocol followed by the Division IME, which would justify overturning the Division IME’s opinion.  Rather, the claim had several opinions which differed in terms of the level of impairment, and the relatedness of impairment, which under applicable law is insufficient to establish that the Division IME is incorrect.

Tina’s use of an educated IME to clearly illustrate applicable standards provided the basis for the ALJ to deny and dismiss claimant’s attempt to overturn the Division IME.

WC 5-015-332-02 & 5-015-33-01: January 30, 2018 SFFCLO (ALJ Keith E. Mottram)

Would you like to know more? Contact Tina Oestreich at toestreich@pollartmiller.com or 720.488.9586

 

From the March 2018 Pollart Miller Newsletter

2019-01-29T09:08:04-07:00