Court Opinion

ID: 9624363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:00:28.017977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:51:52.828811
License: Public Domain

WYNN, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I disagree with that part of the majority’s decision that remands this matter because “the Commission failed to make findings of fact as to what sporadic dates plaintiff was out of work due to medical treatment prior to 15 February 2005.” In my view, the Commission’s Opinion and Award contains adequate findings of fact regarding the days the plaintiff missed because of medical treatment.
The Commission’s Opinion and Award contains the following relevant findings of fact:
*1085. Plaintiff was initially treated on May 10, 2004 . . .
6. On June 10, 2004, Plaintiff began treating with Dr. Cara Siegel. . .
10. On October 28, 2004 an MRI of plaintiffs lumbar spine showed a disc bulge and herniation. On December 14, 2004, plaintiff was treated by Dr. James Fulghum ...
11. On December 17, 2004, plaintiff was seen by Dr. Duncan with primary complaints of thoracic and low back pain. Plaintiff underwent a series of prolotherapy injections that were administered on January 5, January 19, February 2, and February 16, 2005.
Furthermore, the Commission ordered the parties “to confer and stipulate based upon the payroll and medical records as to the days or partial days for which plaintiff is due compensation.” These findings of fact in the Commission’s Opinion are sufficient to determine what sporadic dates plaintiff was out of work due to medical treatment prior to 15 February 2005. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the portion of the majority’s opinion that orders a remand.