Opinion ID: 6353086
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: A.B. Decision at 5; B73 (Dr. Brokaw Dep. at 20).

Text: 10 appropriate for [Sheppard].”40 He further testified that he “cannot causally relate a need for the ongoing treatment to [Sheppard’s] industrial injury in April 2011, because her objective findings do not correlate to her subjective symptoms.”41 Dr. Brokaw testified as follows: Q. Okay. So she has muscular pain, she has neuropathic pain also; is that fair to say? A. I suppose so because of her description of her symptoms. You may also see in my previous reports that I cannot causally relate for a need for ongoing treatment to the work injury of April of 2011 because her objective findings do not correlate to her subjective symptoms.42 .... I in general also wanted to provide some form of conservative care treatment that would benefit her so that we’re not just cutting her off from all treatment. But, once again, Ms. Sheppard has an issue with not telling the truth and credibility. So I’m really not sure how much of the pain that she describes to me or her treating providers is genuine versus when you discuss musculoskeletal versus neuropathic. And I certainly don’t correlate the need for ongoing treatment to the work injury of April 2011.43 .... So, yes, I would correlate her need for any treatment to other problems, whether it’s preexisting disease, subsequent disease or psychiatric disease.44 40 B82 (Dr. Brokaw Dep. at 29); see I.A.B. Decision at 6–7. 41 I.A.B. Decision at 7; see B88–89 (Dr. Brokaw Dep. at 35–36). According to Dr. Brokaw, Sheppard had “subjective symptoms that sound like neuropathic pain, such as the pain shooting up and down her left leg, but [Sheppard] has a credibility issue with not telling the truth, so Dr. Brokaw does not know how much of the pain she describes is genuine.” I.A.B. Decision at 7. 42 B87–88 (Dr. Brokaw Dep. at 34–35). 43 B88–89 (Dr. Brokaw Dep. at 35–36). 44 B89 (Dr. Brokaw Dep. at 36). 11 At the conclusion of Employer’s case, Sheppard moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for a directed verdict.45 She argued that Employer sought to end Sheppard’s ongoing medical treatment, and therefore, Employer had to submit Sheppard’s treatment to the utilization review process.46 Sheppard’s motion was taken under advisement, and the hearing officer deferred her decision until after the case was heard on the merits.47 2. Sheppard’s Case-in-Chief Sheppard presented one witness by deposition, Patricia Grady, CRNP, (“NP Grady”) the nurse practitioner who treated Sheppard.48 NP Grady had 19 years of experience as a nurse practitioner and was licensed in Maryland and Delaware. In addition, NP Grady was a certified provider under the Delaware Workers’ Compensation system.49 NP Grady reviewed Sheppard’s history of treatment with Alpha Care Medical.50 She testified that Sheppard was stable and was benefiting from her treatment with narcotic 45