Summary
In Chrisman v. Rogers, 30 Ark. 351, the successful plaintiff in the original action sued the sureties on a bond to discharge an attachment issued in that action, and it was held that he could recover his damage from those sureties, notwithstanding the fact that an appeal bond had been filed.
Summary of this case from Albertsworth v. Glens Falls Indem. Co.Opinion
CLAIM NO. F100985
ORDER FILED NOVEMBER 20, 2002
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant appeared PRO SE.
Respondents not represented by counsel.
Order
This case comes on for review before the Commission on claimant's motion to remand to the Administrative Law Judge.
After our consideration of claimant's motion, respondent's agreement thereto, and all other matters properly before the Commission, we find that claimant's motion should be granted.
Claimant sustained an admittedly compensable back injury. Dr. Blankenship, a neurosurgeon, became claimant's treating physician and performed surgery. Apparently, Dr. Blankenship believes claimant needs additional surgery. Claimant does not want to undergo another surgery performed by Dr. Blankenship. Accordingly, claimant filed a petition for his one-time change of physician.
In his petition, claimant asked the Administrative Law Judge to designate Dr. Capocelli, a neurosurgeon, as his treating physician. Claimant even indicated that he would be willing to go to Dr. Standefer, another neurosurgeon, as a second choice. Respondent stated that it did not object to claimant's petition for a change of physician, but wanted the Administrative Law Judge to choose the physician. It is important to note that respondent did not specifically object to either physician preferred by claimant. For some unknown reason, the Administrative Law Judge chose Dr. Claude Martimbeau, an orthopedic surgeon. According to claimant's motion, Dr. Martimbeau does not perform back surgery.
Claimant filed the present motion to remand seeking the designation of a physician who can properly treat his condition. He renewed his request for authorization to see Dr. Capocelli as his first choice. In response to the motion, respondent indicated that it has no objection to a remand to the Administrative Law Judge to appoint a neurosurgeon, but again wants the Administrative Law Judge to choose the treating physician.
When a claimant petitions for his or her one-time change of physician, the Administrative Law Judge or the Medical Cost Containment Division cannot ignore the claimant's choice of physician. If claimant's choice is not selected, the decision maker must set forth the reasons for choosing a physician other than the one favored by claimant. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the Administrative Law Judge with directions to choose either Dr. Capocelli or Dr. Standefer, or set forth her reasons for choosing a different neurosurgeon.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________ ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman
______________________________ SHELBY W. TURNER, Commissioner
Commissioner Yates concurs.
CONCURRING OPINION
I respectfully concur in the majority's order remanding this matter to the Administrative Law Judge to choose either Dr. Capocelli or Dr. Standefer, or explain her reasons for choosing a different physician. In choosing Dr. Martimbeau, the Administrative Law Judge failed to adequately explain in her order why she failed to pick either of the two physicians requested by the claimant. I write separate to note that the respondent in this matter did not specifically object to the Administrative Law Judge choosing either of these two physicians. The respondent requested that the Administrative Law Judge choose the treating physician.
The majority also stated that the claimant's choice of a treating physician cannot be ignored. I would note that the Administrative Law Judge or the Medical Cost Containment Division also cannot ignore the respondent's choice of a treating physician, as well. The decision-maker must set forth reasons for the physician selected and the physicians not selected, regardless of whether the decision-maker ultimately selects a physician proposed by the claimant, a physician proposed by the respondents, or a physician who was not proposed by either party.
_______________________________ JOE E. YATES, Commissioner