Opinion ID: 797678
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Further Evaluations

Text: 14 Kleiber visited Dr. Shadel on October 30, 2000, for a Fitness for Duty Examination. In this examination, Kleiber's performance on a memory test revealed a significant memory deficit. J.A. at 28 (Shadel Aff. ¶ 3). Dr. Shadel also reviewed Dr. Arnett's earlier neuropsychological evaluation of Kleiber and concluded that both evaluations were consistent and that there was no reason to expect significant improvement in Mr. Kleiber's condition in the future. Id. (¶ 4). Consequently, Dr. Shadel concluded that Kleiber's limitations in gait, balance, upper-extremity coordination, cognitive processing, and memory would substantially inhibit Kleiber's returning to work. He also expressed some reservations regarding Kleiber's ability to perform job functions involving lifting, carrying, and moving around in the factory environment. Nonetheless, he ordered a Functional Capacity Evaluation from Health Partners's physical therapist Sanford Goldstein. 15 During the Functional Capacity Evaluation, Kleiber lost his balance while walking down a flight of stairs and tested inadequate for balance on level surfaces. J.A. at 138-39 (Goldstein Dep. 30:8-9, 32:12-13). Based upon his examination, Goldstein identified four underlying limitations: (1) safety issues resulting from decreased motor planning; (2) poor balance on level surfaces; (3) decreased grip strength; and (4) decreased finger dexterity. Goldstein concluded that Kleiber should not be assigned to jobs that require balance on uneven surfaces, fine motor and medium motor dexterity, or rapid cyclical work. J.A. at 403 (Phys. Work Performance Evaluation Summary). However, when asked in deposition what constituted a rapid pace, Goldstein was unable to answer. J.A. at 141 (Goldstein Dep. at 43:15-18). 16 After receiving Goldstein's Functional Capacity Evaluation, Dr. Shadel wrote a report regarding Kleiber, dated November 13, 2000. Dr. Shadel concluded that Kleiber (1) could not work independently; (2) needed to work where balance would not be at issue; (3) had to work in a position that allowed only light gripping and simple, slow hand movements due to his dexterity deficits; and (4) could not be placed in a job requiring multiple processes. Additionally, Shadel noted that any return to work would have to be gradual because Kleiber's endurance was likely poor and that it was impossible to predict how Kleiber would function in a busy and noisy environment. 17