ALJ GEE AWARDS CLAIMANT TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY

Velia Cruz v. APM Terminals
Read Full Decision Here

Excerpts

Here, the parties have stipulated that the Claimant was temporarily totally disabled by her injuries from November 18, 2006, until April 15, 2007. (HT, p. 14.) The two physicians most involved in the case, Drs. Loddengaard and Delman, agreed that the Claimant was temporarily partially disabled for some period of time after returning to work on April 16, 2007 (RX 5, p. 12; CX 14, p. 40), and that she reached MMI by December 6, 2007 (CX 7, p. 8; HT, pp. 59, 230, 260). They disagreed, however, on how long that temporary partial disability lasted and whether the Claimant had any residual impairment after reaching MMI: Dr. Loddengaard opined that the Claimant had a 7% whole body impairment, whereas Dr. Delman saw no indications of permanent disability. (CX 7, pp. 8-9; RX 5, pp. 15, 18.)

In opposition to finding that the Claimant was able to return to her full regular employment by September 11, 2007, we have the Claimant's

word and the opinion of Dr. Loddengaard, which depends heavily on the Claimant

statements.47 As I have discussed at length, I have found tremendous evidence that the Claimant's

assertions should be given no weight, which also undermines Dr. Loddengaard's

opinions substantially, since he often relied entirely on the Claimant's

self-serving claims of what she could and could not do. (See CX 7, pp. 7-8.) After the Claimant's

 first MRI in January of 2007, Dr. Loddengaard appears to have never again attempted to develop objective evidence of the Claiman injury, even denying that it was desirable to do so when other physicians suggested a need for such proof.

See RX 5, p. 14 (no need for a new MRI).) Between January and December of 2007, I do not even have any records of the Claimant's subjective symptoms from Dr. Loddengaard, only one-line approvals of the restrictions the Claimant requested. (See, e.g., CX 14, pp. 41-43.) Nor could Dr. Loddengaard provide a persuasive explanation for his belief in the Claimant's continuing impairment when he testified at the hearing, or really any explanation that went beyond accepting the Claimant's word. (See HT, pp. 39, 59, 63-64, 100-02.) For these reasons, I am disinclined to give much credit to Dr. Loddengaard's opinion in December of 2007, that the Claimant should be permanently restricted to light-duty work. (CX 7, p. 8.)

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from

November 18, 2006, through April 15, 2007, for the back injury she sustained on November 17,
2006. These benefits should be paid at the applicable maximum compensation rate of $1,114.44.
As a result of her injury, the Claimant was also limited to light-duty work from April 16,
2007, through September 11, 2007. However, because I find that she had a wage-earning
capacity that was higher than her pre-injury average weekly wage, she is not owed any
compensatory benefits for that period.