CLAIMANT GRANTED MEDICAL BENEFITS FROM EMPLOYER (ALJ AVERY)

Ronald Cantrelle v. Main Iron Works, LLC
Read Full Decision Here

Excerpts

In this case, Claimant alleges he suffered cervical and lumbar injuries as well as a

urinary dysfunction as a result of the alleged 1974 workplace accident. Employer
contends that Claimant's testimony lacks credibility because of inconsistencies in his
medical history and testimony. Additionally, Employer argues that the delays intreatment for Claimant’s neck and bladder complaints are suspect. Carrier similarly argues that Claimant’s alleged neck and bladder injuries are not related to the 1974 workplace accident and further asserts that the workplace injuries Claimant sustained in 1976 and 1981 sever the causal connection between the 1974 accident and any subsequent disabilities, injuries, or illnesses.

Employer argues that Claimant is time-barred from receiving compensation. First,

Employer contends because Claimant was aware of the relationship between his injuries
and his employment early on, he should have filed his claim within one year of the last

voluntary payment made by Employer on October 20, 1975. (CX-1, p. 10). Claimant

argues his claim has not prescribed as the letters written by himself and Mr. Ferrara were filed within a year of Claimant’s workplace accident and meet the criteria for filing a claim under the Act.

Conclusion

Despite the arguments of Employer/Carrier, I find Claimant is entitled to

reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses for treatment provided by Dr. Pribil, Dr.
Judice, and Dr. Oyler as related to the treatment of his low-back injury.This includes co-pays, prescription medications, and mileage. While there is no record that these  physicians provided timely reports to Employer and OWCP, I find good cause has been shown to excuse non-compliance and award Section 7 medical benefits. Employer waswell aware of Claimant’s injury and back problems as they

previously paid for treatment by Dr. Vogel for this condition. Claimant testified that he contacted Employer regarding treatment from Dr. Pribil and Dr. Judice, but was denied authorization for treatment. (Tr.85, 92) I find the treatment Claimant received for his back injury was reasonable and necessary as Claimant’s symptoms persisted despite his procurement of conservative