WCLE MCLE 4-9-15
• Recent AMA Cases
• Thursday April 9, 2015
• 12:00 pm to 1:00 pm
• James R. Thompson Center , Chicago, IL
• 1 Hour General MCLE Credit
Section 8.1b
820 ILCS 305/8.1b
• Sec. 8.1b. Determination of permanent partial disability. For accidental injuries that occur on or after September 1, 2011,
permanent partial disability shall be established using the following criteria:
• (a) A physician licensed to practice medicine in all of its branches preparing a permanent partial disability impairment
report shall report the level of impairment in writing. The report shall include an evaluation of medically defined and
professionally appropriate measurements of impairment that include, but are not limited to: loss of range of motion; loss
of strength; measured atrophy of tissue mass consistent with the injury; and any other measurements that establish the
nature and extent of the impairment. The most current edition of the American Medical Association's "Guides to the
Evaluation of Permanent Impairment" shall be used by the physician in determining the level of impairment.
• (b) In determining the level of permanent partial disability, the Commission shall base its
determination on the following factors: (i) the reported level of impairment pursuant to
subsection (a); (ii) the occupation of the injured employee; (iii) the age of the employee at the
time of the injury; (iv) the employee's future earning capacity; and (v) evidence of disability
corroborated by the treating medical records. No single enumerated factor shall be the sole
determinant of disability. In determining the level of disability, the relevance and weight of any
factors used in addition to the level of impairment as reported by the physician must be explained
in a written order.
Frederick Williams v. Flexible Staffing
11WC046390; 13IWCC0557;13L50595;14IWCC0576
Facts
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DA 10-7-11
45 year old welder grabs for 400 lb rail
Right distal biceps tendon rupture
Dr. Aribindi performs surgery
RTW full duty, despite complaints; no job
Dr. Mark Levin does AMA impairment rating: 6% UEI; 4% WPI
Arbitrator’s Decision: 30% arm; reduced by IWCC to 25% arm
Respondent’s Circuit Court Review: “Remanding-Ord” (2-13-14 “Re-Arbitration
Allowed”)
• 14 IWCC 0576: Corrected Decision & Opinion On Remand (7-22-14): 25% loss of
use of the Right Arm
• 8-15-14 Respondent files Circuit Court Review
Frederick Williams v. Flexible Staffing
14 IWCC 0576 (On Remand)
• On remand the Commission makes the following clarification to support its
conclusion, modifies the Decision of the Arbitrator as stated below and otherwise
affirms and adopts the decision of the Arbitrator.
• We understand Respondent's argument that Dr. Levin's A.M.A. impairment rating
of 6% of the upper extremity was not given enough weight by the Arbitrator.
However, we do not agree with the great weight that Respondent wants placed
on this rating because to do so would be to disregard the other factors and give
them no weight at all. Section 8.1b of the Act requires the consideration of five
factors in determining permanent partial disability.
• Section 8.1b also states, "No single factor shall be the sole determinant of
disability. In determining the level of disability, the relevance and weight of any
factors used in addition to the level of impairment as reported by the physician
must be explained in a written order." We initially note that the term
"impairment" in relation to the A.M.A. rating is not synonymous with the term
"disability" as it relates to the ultimate permanent partial disability award.
Frederick Williams v. Flexible Staffing
14 IWCC 0576
• Based on the above, the Commission finds that the 6% impairment
rating by Dr. Levin does not adequately represent Petitioner's actual
disability in this case. When considering the other four factors, we
find that Petitioner's permanent partial disability is 25% loss of use of
the right arm. The Commission modifies the Arbitrator's Decision, to
decrease Petitioner's partial disability award from 30% to 25% loss of
use of the right arm pursuant to Section 8(e) of the Act.
• Discussion of other factors: Maybe next time
October 2014 AMA Cases
• Todd Booten v. SOI DOT, 14IWCC0837, 10/03/2014, No AMA Guides,
Award modified down to 12.5% leg from 20%
• Henry Taylor v. City of Chicago, 14IWCC0838, 10/06/2014, No AMA
Guides, Award of additional 7% leg (25% prior credit) affirmed
• Fabiola Fernandez v. Dart Container, 14IWCC0843, 10/06/2014, No
AMA Guides, Award 50% right thumb affirmed (statutory amputation)
• Steven Hand v. Illinois Cement, 14IWCC0857, 10/06/2014, No AMA
Guides, DA’s 5/5/09 & 10/28/09?, 20% leg on remand, 8.1b analysis
used
October 2014 AMA Cases
• Edna Murphy v. WalMart, 14IWCC0874, 10/08/2014, No AMA Guides,
Award of 10% each hand affirmed
• Anthony Jones v. City of Chicago, 14IWCC0880, 10/06/2014, Award
modified down to 22.5% from 25% leg (Both parties got AMA?)
• Terina Green v. PPG Industries, 14IWCC0912, 10/24/2014, Award
17.5% whole person affirmed, AMA 5% UEI, Award 17.5% whole
person (34.6% arm) affirmed
• Joshua Gochanour v. Eichenauer Services, 14IWCC0929, 10/29/2014,
Award of 17.5% thumb modified up to 25%
Anthony Jones v. City of Chicago
12WC037009; 14IWCC037009
• The Decision of the Arbitrator was filed with the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission on March 14, 2014, and, in
said decision, Arbitrator Mason concluded Petitioner lost 25% use of his left leg due to injuries sustained to his left knee
on August 22, 2012. In arriving at her decision, the Arbitrator applied the criteria for determining permanent partial
disability as is set forth in Section 8.1b of the Act. The Commission takes no issue with the conclusions arrived at by the
Arbitrator in her application of Section 8.1b with the exception to the evidence of disability corroborated by the treating
medical records.
• The Commission, in reviewing Petitioner's medical records and testimony and comparing the two, finds Petitioner engaged
in embellishment.
• The Commission notes Petitioner's complaints were more pronounced when he was examined by Dr. Michael Gross, his
choice for an AMA examination, and by Dr. Shane Nho, Respondent's AMA examiner, than they were when he was
examined by his own treating physician, Dr. Michael Maday, and his physical therapists at ATI.
• The Commission also notes the two complaints Petitioner testified to having outside of work, not being able to ride a
bicycle and having to avoid picking up his granddaughter, are not found in his medical records.
• The Commission takes the position that Petitioner was more forthcoming concerning the true condition of his left knee
with Dr. Maday and physical therapists than he was with Dr. Gross, Dr. Nho or the Arbitrator and, in doing so, finds his left
knee not be as permanently disabled as did the Arbitrator. Accordingly, the Commission reduces the permanent partial
disability award by 2 1/2%, finding Petitioner sustained a 22 1/2% loss of use of his left leg.
Terina Green v. PPG
12WC035460; 14IWCC0912
• 1. The level of impairment: Dr. Atluri furnished multiple impairment evaluation reports. Most important is his last one
which was based upon Petitioner having finally reached maximum medical improvement. Dr. Atluri found Petitioner's
complaints to be credible at that time and he concluded her impairment was nine percent of the upper extremity or five
percent of a whole person. Petitioner's Quick Dash score was 56.8 which he testified was at the higher end of moderate in
terms of severity. Dr. Atluri testified that while a normal rotation is between sixty-five to ninety degrees, Petitioner's
external and internal rotation was about forty degrees. Dr. Atluri added that an elevation or flexion of the arm is typically
165 degrees, but Petitioner's score was 125 degrees. Dr. Atluri also testified that Petitioner had loss of motion in those
three ranges and that Petitioner also had some weakness secondary to some pain or discomfort, as well as some pain with
a cross arm maneuver. Dr. Atluri testified that it was significant that on March 18, 2013, Petitioner still had a bit of residual
tenderness in her left shoulder, her left shoulder motion was not normal, she had some stiffness, and loss of rotation as
well as loss of elevation. Dr. Atluri testified that Petitioner may have some minor improvements in her motion, but that he
did not expect significant improvement in the future. Finally, Dr. Atluri added that Petitioner has deficits in all ranges of
motion and will continue to have deficits on a permanent or indefinite basis. The Arbitrator gives considerable weight to
this factor.
• 2. Petitioner's Occupation: Petitioner's occupation at the time of the accident was that of a factory worker. She had
performed those duties for approximately six years prior to her accident. At the time of arbitration Petitioner was
unemployed as her last employer, G & D Integrated, had shut down. Petitioner voluntarily left her employment with
Respondent to work for G & D. The job for G & D was supervisory in nature and, by Petitioner's description, less physical
than her job for Respondent. Petitioner is left hand dominant. No direct evidence was presented to show that Petitioner's
current unemployment status is attributable to her work injury. How ever, based upon Petitioner's credible explanation of
her former job duties for Respondent, the Arbitrator reasonably infers that it would be challenging for Petitioner to
engage in that type of factory work in light of her injury.
Terina Green v. PPG
12WC035460; 14IWCC0912
• 3. Petitioner's Age: Petitioner was thirty-nine years old at the time of her accident. No direct evidence was
presented by either party as to how Petitioner's age impacts any disability. However, the Arbitrator notes
that Petitioner may reasonably be expected to live and work with the effects of her injury for a longer time
than an older individual and, therefore, her permanent partial disability may be greater than that of an older
individual.
4. Future Earning Capacity: No evidence was presented as to how Petitioner's future earning capacity was
affected by her injury. While Petitioner testified to a reduction in pay after her accident, she did not prove by
a preponderance of the evidence that the reduction was related to her injury.
5. Evidence of Disability Corroborated in the Treating Records: Petitioner's records from her treating
physicians have demonstrated evidence of disability. Petitioner underwent surgery to her left shoulder
which included a subacromial decompression, rotator cuff repair (for an 80% tear), a proximal biceps
tenodesis, and intra-articular evaluation, debridement, and removal of loose bodies. While surgery improved
Petitioner's condition and she was released with no restrictions, she has continued to notice limitations in
her left arm and shoulder. Post-operatively the records of Dr. Smith and the physical therapist show ongoing
pain and stiffness in Petitioner's left arm and shoulder. Additionally, while there is no treating record to
corroborate Petitioner's testimony regarding her visit and procedure with Dr. Smith on June 4, 2013, the
Arbitrator notes Dr. Smith's multiple notations and comments concerning scar tissue and adhesions in earlier
visits.
Terina Green v. PPG
12WC035460; 14IWCC0912
• Petitioner's testimony concerning her injury and her ongoing symptoms
and complaints was credible. Even Respondent's impairment rating
physician, Dr. Atluri, found her complaints and responses during their last
examination credible.
• In light of Section 8(b) 1 of the Act and after considering the foregoing
factors, the Arbitrator concludes that Petitioner has suffered a loss of
17.5% of a person as a whole as a result of her work accident. As
Petitioner's injury is primarily to her left shoulder, an award under 8(d)1 is
appropriate pursuant to Will County.
Joshua Gochanour v. Eichenauer Services
11WC049129; 14IWCC0929
• First, the Respondent submitted an AMA impairment rating of 10% of the thumb, which
was determined by Dr. Brower. The Petitioner did not submit an AMA impairment rating
into evidence. In making his determination, Dr. Brower noted complaints of decreased
sensation along the left radial thumb, no atrophy, normal range of motion other than
inability to extend the IP joint past zero degrees, and normal strength. Sensory testing
verified partial loss of sensation at the radial aspect of the thumb.
• Petitioner's occupation was a server/waiter. While he complained subjectively of
problems doing his job subsequent to the accident, his medical records, other than Dr.
Nord's, appear to indicate he was having no significant problems doing his job. Dr. Nord
noted that Petitioner continued to have left thumb pain after returning to work, and
after a few months left to take a different job. We note that the ER report from Advocate
Bromenn and the report of Dr. Brower indicated the Petitioner is right handed, so this
injury was to his non-dominant hand. At the same time, being that the injury was to the
thumb, any impairment was to a digit that is important to gripping.
Joshua Gochanour v. Eichenauer Services
11WC049129; 14IWCC0929
• The Petitioner returned to employment at approximately 33 years of age. Dr. Tattini
noted in his last report of September 15, 2012 that he hopes Petitioner's ongoing
sensation problems will continue to improve over time. Petitioner testified that it hadn't
improved at the time of the hearing date. Dr. Nord reported that he believed Petitioner
may sustain increasing discomfort in the area of the laceration as he gets older.
• No evidence was presented by either party that indicates real or possible impact from
the injury on the Petitioner's future earning capacity.
• With regard to the factor involving evidence of disability corroborated by the medical
records, the Petitioner's continued complaints of a lack of sensation in the radial nerve of
the thumb are supported by his treating records, as well as the report of Dr. Brower.
While he testified to a lack of strength, this does not seem to be corroborated by the
medical, as the physical therapy records and last notes of Dr. Tattini indicate essentially
normal strength. Dr. Brower, Respondent's examining physician, did note a small loss of
range of motion with regard to IP joint extension. Dr. Nord's June 25, 2013 report
supports some ongoing weakness of the left thumb.
Joshua Gochanour v. Eichenauer Services
11WC049129; 14IWCC0929
• The Commission believes that, based on a review of the surgical report, this case
involves a relatively significant thumb injury with nerve repair. There was no
evidence of significant tendon or bone injury. There was evidence of ongoing
problems with radial sensation. The Commission takes into account the AMA
rating and the lack of evidence presented with regard to earning capacity.
However, in this particular case, we give more weight to the fact that Petitioner
has corroborated complaints regarding an ongoing lack of sensation and some
lack of strength, that he will have to live with this injury and its sequelae for a
significantly longer time than an older worker, and that he testified to difficulty in
returning to his normal job due to the injury. Based on this and a review of prior
precedent regarding similar injuries, the Commission declines the Petitioner's
request to increase the award to 35% of the left thumb, but does increase it from
the Arbitrator's award of 17.5% of the left thumb to 25% of the left thumb.
November 2014 AMA Cases
• Douglas Coffey v. State of Illinois/Menard, 14IWCC0991, 11/19/2014, No AMA Guides,
Award 12.65% MAW (25% arm)
• Steve Maynard v. Danville Housing Authority, 14IWCC0992, 11/19/2014, AMA 6% UEI,
Award 17.5% MAW (or 34.6% arm)
• Jacqueline Camacho v. Bar Toma, 14IWCC0994, 11/21/2014, No AMA Guides, Award
22.5% MAW
• Stormy Monday v. Caterpillar, 14IWCC1002, 11/24/2014, AMA 6% WPI, Award 15% MAW
• David Sharpe v. Lakeland Com. Coll., 14IWCC1006, 11/24/2014, AMA 5% UEI, Award
22.5% arm
• Juan Carlos Alvia (Aliva?) v. Country Club Hills PD, 14IWCC1028, 11/25/2014, AMA 5%
LEI, Award of 7.5% foot modified up to 12.5%
• Kevin Klein v. Dynegy, 14IWCC1030, 11/26/2014, No AMA Guides, Award 17.5% leg
Douglas Coffey v. State of Illinois/Menard
14IWCC0991
• 29 year old correctional officer
• Right rotator cuff tear and impingement syndrome & labral tear
• Award 12.65% MAW (25% arm equivalent); Affirmed & adopted
unanimously
• “Petitioner’s date of accident is after September 1, 2011, and
therefore Section 8.1b of the Act shall be discussed concerning the
PPD award being issued. It is noted when discussing the permanency
awrd being issued that no PPD impairment report pursuant to
Sections 8.1b(a) and 8.1b(b)(i) of the Act was offered into evidence by
either party. This factor is hereby waived.”(emphasis added)
Steve Maynard v. Danville Housing Authority
14IWCC0992
• The Commission, after considering the issues of the nature and extent of petitioner's disability, and whether
the award should be based on § 8(e) or 8(d)2 of the Act and being advised of the facts and law, affirms and
adopts the Decision of the Arbitrator, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof (17.5% MAW;
subacrominal decompression & rotator cuff repair)
• Petitioner was judged by Respondent's medical evaluator to have a six percent (6%) AMA impairment rating
of the upper extremity. Seven percent (7%) impairment of the arm is the maximum impairment rating
available in cases of full thickness rotator cuff tears.
• The Arbitrator has some issues with me impairment rating found by Dr. Katz. The rating is premised on the
Petitioner having a normal range of motion in the right shoulder. In his exam, Dr. Katz reported such a
finding. However, it appears from the report, Dr. Katz only tested the Petitioner's right shoulder. The AMA
Guides require the examiner to test both shoulders so as to accurately determine what is normal for each
individual. See AMA Guide, Sixth Edition, Section 15.7 (a), p. 461. More importantly. Dr. Katz' numbers are
inconsistent with those found on several occasions by Dr. Rotman, who did examine both shoulders. On
January 28, 2013, Dr. Rotman found 140 degrees of flexion and abduction of me right shoulder and 150 on
the left. He found 45 degrees of external rotation on the right shoulder and 60 degrees on the left. The
Arbitrator cannot see how Dr. Katz was able to produce 180 degrees of flexion and 90 degrees of external
rotation during his exam. Those numbers greatly exceed those found by Dr. Rotman on the Petitioner's good
arm.
• Dr. Katz' range of motion findings are suspicious for the above reasons. The impairment rating used
presumes a normal range of motion. For those reasons, the Arbitrator places very little weight on the rating.
Jacqueline Camacho v. Bar Toma
14IWCC0994
• The Commission, after considering the issues of accident, medical expenses,
temporary total disability, permanent partial disability, maintenance, and being
advised of the facts and law, affirms and adopts the Decision of the Arbitrator,
which is attached hereto and made a part hereof
• The Arbitrator considers the factors set forth in Section 8.1b of the Act, noting
that neither party offered an AMA impairment rating into evidence.
• The Arbitrator, having considered the treatment records, Dr. Phillips' opinions, the
functional capacity evaluation, Petitioner's chosen occupation and relatively
young age and Petitioner's testimony, finds that Petitioner is permanently
partially disabled to the extent of 22.5% loss of use of the person as a whole,
equivalent to 112.5 weeks of compensation, under Section 8(d)2.
Stormy Monday v. Caterpillar
12WC024136; 14IWCC1002
• The Commission, after considering the issues of accident, temporary total disability, permanent partial
disability, medical expenses, and being advised of the facts and law, affirms and adopts the Decision of the
Arbitrator, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. (15% MAW, hemilaminectomy)
• 1. The level of impairment pursuant to the AMA Guidelines. Dr. Stephen Weiss examined Petitioner on
behalf of Respondent on October 18, 2012 and July 1, 2013. On July 1, 2013, Dr. Weiss issued an impairment
rating of 6% of the whole person. Dr. Weiss testified he rated Petitioner on spinal stenosis with a resolved
radiculopathy that he did not think was work related. The Arbitrator found Dr. Weiss' opinions to be suspect
as noted in "F" above.
• Petitioner was examined by Dr. Weiss on October 12, 2012, This examination was at the request of
Respondent. Dr. Weiss felt the history of accident was consistent, and felt he suffered an aggravation of a
degenerative back condition, which he felt resolved after a short period of time. Dr. Weiss did not indicate
where he received information that the condition resolved itself and when. Dr. Weiss felt surgery was not
warranted and related to this accident, and diagnosed pre-existing degenerative disc disease, symptom
magnification, and prior back problems in 2010. Dr. Weiss did admit the 2010 injury resulted in a short
period of treatment, and there was no evidence of on going symptoms prior to June 9, 2012. Dr. Weiss based
his symptom magnification opinion on a negative straight leg raising test. The Arbitrator notes with interest
that Petitioner was hired 6 months before this accident following a pre-employment physical examination
that indicated no back symptoms or problems,
Stormy Monday v. Caterpillar
12WC024136; 14IWCC1002
• 2. Petitioner's occupation. Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a painter. His job entailed painting
transmissions and drive train.
• 3. Petitioner's Age. Petitioner was 58 years of age at the time of the injury.
• 4. The Employee's Future Earning Capacity. Petitioner testified he had significant relief of his pain symptoms
subsequent to his back surgery, however he still experiences pain in his lower back. Petitioner testified he is
80% better than before surgery. Petitioner was deemed a supplemental employee at the time of the injury
by Respondent and was terminated while awaiting medical treatment.
5. Evidence of Disability. Petitioner's treating orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Mulconrey, testified he performed a
foraminotomy, partial fasciatomy, and a hemilaminotomy at L4-L5 and L5-S1. Dr. Mulconrey testified
Petitioner's incident at work was consistent with the symptoms he experienced in his lower back and right
lower extremity. Dr. Mulconrey released Petitioner to perform full duty work on April 17, 2013.
• The Arbitrator has taken all of the factors listed above in consideration and finds Petitioner is entitled to
receive an award from Respondent of 15% disability to his man or person as a whole under Section 8(d)2 of
the Act. Based further upon the above, the Arbitrator finds the above conditions of ill-being to now be
permanent in nature.
David Sharpe v. Lakeland Com. Coll.
14IWCC1006
• The Commission, after considering the issues of the nature and extent of Petitioner's permanent partial disability, and the
"interpretation of section 8.1b," and being advised of the facts and law, modifies the Decision of the Arbitrator as stated
below and otherwise affirms and adopts the Decision of the Arbitrator, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
• The Arbitrator awarded Petitioner 22.5 % loss of the use of the left arm. In determining Petitioner's permanent partial
disability, the Arbitrator noted that the AMA rating of 5% impairment was valid, Petitioner's vocation of carpenter requires
the active use of both arms, he was 51 years old and would have to live with the disability for the rest of his life, there was
no evidence of any loss of earning potential, the injury required surgery including the use of a surgical screw, and both Dr.
Maender and Petkovich found reduced range of motion and Dr. Petkovich found a toss of muscle mass.
• The Commission notes that Dr. Maender released Petitioner to full duty construction-type work within about 2 1/2
months of surgery and Petitioner was able to return to his previous job activities for 15 months. He did not show any loss
of earning potential, eventually left employment voluntarily, and is not seeking future employment. Everybody, including
Petitioner, all agreed that he had an excellent outcome from his surgery. In assessing the record as a whole, the
Commission finds that an award of 17.5% loss of the use of the left arm is appropriate in this case and modifies the award
of the Arbitrator accordingly. Finally, the Commission notes that Respondent has already paid all reasonable and necessary
medical expenses and temporary total disability benefits.
• Arbitrator: Petitioner did not submit an AMA impairment rating so the only AMA impairment rating is that of Dr. Petkovich.
The Arbitrator finds that the AMA impairment rating of Dr. Petkovich is valid; however, the Arbitrator does note that
impairment is not the equivalent of disability.
Juan Carlos Avila v. Country Club Hills PD
14IWCC1208
• The Commission, after considering the issue of permanent disability and being advised of the facts and law,
modifies the Decision of the Arbitrator as stated below and otherwise affirms and adopts the Decision of the
Arbitrator, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
• Arbitrator Kane, after taking into consideration the enumerated factors as listed in Section 8.1(b) of the Act,
found Petitioner sustained a 7.5% loss of use of the right foot as a result of the March 31, 2012, accident.
Petitioner appealed Arbitrator Kane's arbitration decision, arguing his injury merited a larger permanency
award. The Commission agrees.
• After reviewing the arbitration decision against the evidence, the Commission finds Arbitrator Kane erred
when he found Petitioner had no complaints after returning to work concerning his right foot. Petitioner
credibly testified he now wears boots to maintain stability in his right ankle as well as experiencing swelling
in his ankle on more strenuous days, stiffness in his ankle when it is kept in the same position for a
prolonged period of time, such as when he drive a patrol car. Also credibly testified to was Petitioner's need
to medicate with Ibuprofen several times a week as well as his having to change certain aspects as to how he
performs his duties as a police officer due to the residual effects of the March 31, 2012, accident. In
recognition of Petitioner's lingering pain and functional deficits, the Commission finds Petitioner has
experienced a 12 1/2% loss of the use of his right foot.
• Arbitrator: (i) the reported level of impairment per the AMA Guide is 5% of the right foot ) Dr. Lee gave his opinions on
impairment in his report dated September 19, 2013. (Res. Ex. 17) Dr. Lee opined that Petitioner has a 5% lower extremity
impairment under the AMA guides.)
Kevin Klein v. Dynegy
14IWCC1030
• The Commission, after considering the issues of accident, causal connection, medical
expenses, temporary total disability and permanency, and being advised of the facts and
law, reverses the Decision of the Arbitrator, for the reasons stated below.
• 1) The reported level of impairment pursuant to the AMA Guidelines.
The parties did not provide an impairment rating for the right knee. As such, this factor
does not influence the permanent partial disability determination.
• Based on the five factors outlined in the Act, we find that Petitioner is entitled to 17.5%
loss of the right leg. He sustained an acute partial medial meniscus tear, which was
repaired, and following rehabilitation, Petitioner failed to report any major issues. While
he still experiences weakness in his right knee, has trouble lifting himself up, and pain
with certain weather, his final examination was normal and he has continued to work in
the same job as he had before the accident with no evidence of a diminution of wages.
December 2014 AMA Cases
• Jeremiah Leibendorfer v. City of Bloomington, 14IWCC1064, 12/09/2014,
AMA 4% UEI, Award 10% whole person (19.8% arm) affirmed
• Jerry Pratt v. Vactor Manufacturing, 14IWCC1080, 12/12/2014, No AMA
Guides, Award 5% leg affirmed
• Andrezj Gornicki v. Halina’s, 14IWCC1081, 12/12/2014, AMA 8% WPI,
Award of 35% each hand + 5% whole person + 3 weeks disfigurement
modified to 20% left hand + 25% right hand + 3 weeks disfigurement
• Robert Czuprynski v. Continetnal Tire, 14IWCC1100, 12/15/2014, AMA 3%
UEI?, Award 25% hand affirmed
• Derek Flatt v. SOI Pinckneyville, 14IWCC1107, 12/19/2014, No AMA, Award
25% leg affirmed
• Carl Jones v. Orland Fire, 14IWCC1112, 12/19/2014, AMA 4% WPI, Award
of 6% whole person modified up to 8% whole person
Robert Czuprynski v. Continental Tire
12WC003616 & cons.; 14IWCC1100
• DA’s 11/04/2011 and later
• 47 year old extruder sidewall operator
• Left hand; TFCC tear; synovectomy; hemiresection of dital ulna with
arthoplasty; follow up injections
• RTW full duty
• AMA rating by Dr. Richard Howard: “3% disability based on loss of
range of motion” (3% UEI based on “*” Section 15.7 Range of Motion
Impairment? Why not DBI “TFCC Tear,” Table 15-2, pg. 396, default is
8% UEI?)
• Award of 25% loss of use of left hand affirmed
Robert Czuprynski v. Continental Tire
12WC003616; 14IWCC1100
• Pursuant to Section 8.1b, the Arbitrator hereby considers the five statutory
factors in the evaluation of Petitioner’s PPD…
• (i) Impairment Rating: Dr. Richard Howard found Petitioner suffered from
chronic TFCC tear secondary to ulnar impaction
• “3% disability based on loss of range of motion”
• No consideration to pain, swelling or occupation
• Impairment does not equate to PPD
• Pianist v. truck driver comparison
• Thus while taking into account the rating as required by the Act, the
Arbitrator declines to simply adopt the AMA rating as the disability rating
Robert Czuprynski v. Continental Tire
12WC003616; 14IWCC1100
• (ii) Occupation: “performing strenuous job duties of an extruder
sidewall operator…repetitive heavy lifting which places significant
strain on his left wrist and exacerbates his symptoms.”
• (iii) Age: “47…diminished healing capacity as a result thereof.”
• (iv) Earning Capacity: “(N)o direct evidence…based on the severity of
the Petitioner’s injuries…it is reasonable to conclude that such
repurcusions will manifest in the near future.”
• (v) Disability: “Petitioner’s account of his disability is identical to that
reflected in the medical records…wrist pain…swelling…loss of
strength…soreness…fatigue…”
Carl Jones v. Orland Fire
11WC040157; 14IWCC1112
• (i) AMA Rating: 4% WPI by Dr. Michael Kornblatt; “The rating went unrebutted by Petitioner in
that Petitioner did not provide an impairment rating. Petitioner however challenged the
sufficiency of the rating during Dr. Kornblatt’s deposition..questioned whether Dr. Kornblatt
appropriately applied the modifiers to deviate from the default rating of 6%..Arbitrator places
some weight on the impairment rating.”
• (ii) Occupation: “Firefighter/paramedic…heavy demand job…both physiscians were of the opinion
that Petitioner could return to the heavy demands of his work. Arbitrator places some weight on
this factor…”
• (iii) Age: “33.. Young individual…live with any PPD…for a greater number of years… Arbitrator
places some weight on this factor…”
• (iv) Future earnings: Reduced OT after injury, but making more money now in total; “not suffered
any impairment in earning capacity… Arbitrator places some weight on this factor…”
• (v)Disability: “Disc bulge C5-6…superimposed central disc herniation.. Treated conservatively…PT
and an injection…minimal residual complaints…The Arbitrator places significant weight on this
factor..”
Carl Jones v. Orland Fire
11WC040157; 14IWCC1112
• Arbitration award: 6% loss of the person as a whole
• Commission modifies up to 8% loss of use of the person as a whole
• MRI
• Last visit with treating doctor
• Follow up after released by treater
January 2015 AMA Cases
• Chad Tranchant v. SOI Pontiac, 15IWCC0006, 1/08/2015, No AMA, Arbitrator
Award: 25% whole person ( 7.5% fracture coccyx, 7.5% left shoulder separation,
10% two herniated discs) + 10% right arm; Commission modifies down because
award is “excessive” to 15% whole person (7.5% coccyx, 2.5% shoulder, 5% back)
+ 7.5% right arm
• Ramon Rodriguez v. Aramark, 15IWCC0023, 1/12/2015, AMA 2% LEI, Award 20%
leg affirmed
• Keith Littlejohn v. ABF, 15IWCC0028, 1/15/2015, AMA 3% UEI, Award of 15%
MAW (29.6% arm) modified up to 17% MAW (33.6% arm)
• Micahel Griffin v. Koppers, 15IWCC0060, 1/23/2015, No AMA, but inference that
if IME says “no permanent injury” then a “zero impairment rating(?); Zero PPD
award modified up to 2.5% whole person
• Darell Earhart v. Cassens, 15IWCC0061, 1/23/2015, No AMA, Award of 4% MAW
affirmed
Ramon Rodriguez v. Aramark
13WC011119; 15IWCC0023
• (i) Impairment Rating: “Dr. Lieber assessed a PPI rating of 2% functional
impairment of the right lower extremity…While the Arbitrator places some
weight on this factor, the Arbitrator concludes that the impairment
assessment is woefully lacking…including but not limited to
motion…strength..atrophy”
• (ii) Occupation: “Route salesman…some weight”
• (iii) Age: “33…middle of work life” (weight?)
• (iv) Future Earnings: “No evidence…speculative” (weight?)
• (v) Disability (DX scoped torn medial meniscus): “Working without
restriction…complaints…some weight”
• Award 20% leg affirmed
Keith Littlejohn v. ABF
13WC002732; 15IWCC0028
• (i) Impairment: Dr. Ram Aribindi rates 3% UEI; “Dr. Aribindi should have
used AC joint injury or disease as the diagnosis…still considered Class 1, but
the range would have increased to between 8% and 12%...it yields the
highest impairment rating…PPI is 10% UEI”
• (ii) Occupation: “Truck driver dock man…judicial notice that this position is
heavy work…PPD larger than an individual who performs lighter work”
• (iii) Age: “61…older individual…less likely to live and work longer…PPD is
not as extensive as a younger individual”
• (iv) Future Earnings: “No evidence”
• (v) Disability (DX Scoped rotator cuff tear & distal clavicular excision):
“Procedures…FCE heavy demand level…RTW full duty”
• “PPD is not simply calculation, but an evaluation”
Keith Littlejohn v. ABF
13WC002732; 15IWCC0028
• Arbitrator’s award: 15% MAW (29.64% arm)
• Commission modifies up to 17% MAW (33.6% arm)
• Arbitrator provided thorough analysis of the factors of Section 8.1(b)
• Commission relies on analysis
• “However, Commission believes that additional PPD is required”
• Multiple tears and repairs