Fill and Sign the In the Supreme Court of the Sta Te of Mississippi Form

BEFORE THE MISSISSIPPI WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIMANTV. NO. EMPLOYERAND CARRIERAPPEARING FOR CLAIMANT:Honorable , Attorney, , MississippiAPPEARING FOR EMPLOYER AND CARRIER:Honorable , Attorney, , Mississippi ORDER OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Claimant injured his back in the course of his employment as a mechanic on 1, 20 . Claimant alleges he remains temporarily totally disabled and is need of surgery, however the employer and carrier deny that claimant is in need of surgery. The parties stipulated that claimant's average weekly wage on the date of injury was $ .A hearing was held in , Mississippi, on , 20 , and, upon the receipt of additional evidence, the record was closed. ISSUES The issues are as follows:1. whether claimant is temporarily totally disabled and in need of surgery because of the injury which occurred on , 20 , and, if not,2.whether claimant is permanently disabled because of the injury.At the hearing on , 20 , claimant testified he had received temporary total disability benefits from , 20 to late 20 ; that he had been reemployed as a sales clerk by since 20 ; and that he now earns $ per hour compared to $ per hour on the date of injury. Claimant further testified he continues to experience disabling back and right leg pain which radiates to his right foot; that his right leg sometimes feels numb and goes to sleep; and that he cannot bend, stoop, or lift heavy objects according to the restrictions assessed by Dr. . Claimant stated he does not sleep well and needs assistance from family members to perform household chores; that he also needs assistance from co-workers because he cannot carry batteries, climb stairs stock shelves or bag merchandise "like [he] should;" and that he wears a TENS unit but "it really doesn't help." Claimant also stated that the pain gives him a "bad attitude". testified he was a Store Manager for until he resigned the week before the hearing in order to spend more time with his family. Mr. , claimant's supervisor before and after the injury, also testified claimant was a hard worker; that he had trouble bending over after the injury; and that although he had been satisfied with claimant's job performance, claimant's co-workers had complained about his ability to work. Mr. further testified claimant could sit down in a chair at work although he was not always able to take advantage of that opportunity, and that he had seen claimant wince because of pain at work.Neurosurgeon Dr. testified he had treated a claimant has a 70 to 75% permanent medical impairment and restrictions on bending, twisting and lifting more than five pounds. He also concluded that although claimant's need for surgery is not urgent, his condition will continue to deteriorate without surgery, and that he is recommending surgery solely on the basis of claimant's complaints of pain.Dr. testified he examined claimant on one occasion-- , 20 --at the request of claimant's former attorney of record. Dr. * testified claimant magnified his symptoms throughout the examination, and that his responses to objective medical tests were inconsistent with his subjective complaints of back and leg pain. He also testified that although a prior myelogram and CT scan showed a very minimal bulge of the L4 disc, the results were within normal limits. He further testified that the results of a prior MRI were normal. Dr. concluded that claimant probably had a low back strain as a result of the injury, but that he should have made a complete recovery within 6 to 8 weeks. Dr. therefore concluded that claimant did not need surgery and that he could resume his normal duties.The records of orthopedic surgeon Dr. are marked as part of General Exhibit 1. Dr. treated claimant for complaints of back and right leg pain from , 20 to , 20 . On , 20 , Dr. noted claimant had moderate to severe paraspinous spasm. He diagnosed a lumbar sprain and placed claimant at bed rest for 7 to 10 days. Dr. examined claimant again on , 20 and , 20 . He concluded, based on his examinations of claimant and on a physical therapy report, that claimant was L4-5, but that he did not have a major neurological deficit and should not undergo surgery. He specifically concluded that the percutaneous discectomy recommended by Dr. had less than a 50-50 chance of returning claimant to heavy work, Dr. also noted that at the time of his examination on , 20 , claimant had returned to work as a clerk for , and that claimant stated he "can hold down his present job with minimal difficulty and some back pain."Also included in General Exhibit Number 1 are (1) a report by radiologist Dr. indicating that an MRI conducted on , 20 was normal, and (2) a report by radiologist Dr. indicating that a CT scan and myelogram conducted on , 20 111 showed slight bulging of the disc at L4-5. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Claimant sustained an injury on , 20 as the term "injury" is defined in Section 71-3-3 (b).2.Claimant's average weekly wage on the date of injury was $ .3. Claimant was temporarily totally disabled from , 20 , the date of injury, to , 20 , the date by which Dr. found claimant had reached maximum medical improvement. Although claimant alleges that he remains temporarily totally disabled and in need of additional surgery, a preponderance of the evidence indicates that he has reached maximum medical improvement and does not need surgery. Dr. 's conclusion that claimant would benefit from surgery is contradicted by Dr. , Dr. , and Dr. . Dr. and Dr. also found that claimant magnified his symptoms, and concluded that, in light of claimant's statement that he could maintain his present job with minimal difficulty and some back pain, claimant should not consider surgery.4.Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits at the rate of $ per week from , 20 to , 20 , with proper credit for wages earned by claimant and compensation paid by defendants during this period.5. Claimant does not have a permanent disability because of injury. Although claimant alleges he continues to experience disabling pain in his back and right leg, a preponderance of the evidence indicates he does not have a permanent medical impairment. Dr. assessed a 70 to 75% permanent medical impairment to the body as a whole to injury. However Dr. and Dr. found claimant did not have a permanent medical impairment, that he was magnifying his symptoms, and that he could resume his normal activities. Dr. did not specifically address the issue of whether claimant had a permanent medical impairment. Although Dr. noted that claimant had significant damage to his disc, he also noted that claimant did not have a major neurological deficit, that he did not need surgery and that he continued to work "with minimal difficulty and some back pain."In holding that a preponderance of the evidence does not establish that claimant has a permanent medical impairment attributable to injury, this Administrative Judge also notes that claimant has worked as a clerk for the employer since 20 at the same or higher wage rate than he was earning on the date of injury.6. Claimant is entitled to all medical services and1.Temporary total disability benefits at the rate of $ per week from 11, 20 to , 20 , with proper credit earned by claimant and compensation paid by defendants during this period.2. All medical services and supplies required by the nature of claimant's injury and the process of his recovery as provided in Section 71-3-15. SO ORDERED this the day of , 20 .