Court Opinion

ID: 9712041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:45:12.852895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:09.427048
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, specially concurring: I agree with the majority that claimant is permanently totally disabled. My only disagreement, if any, is to make it clear, I believe, that the disability is medical and not odd lot. On August 23, 1996, Dr. Loomis stated, “I think he is going to remain and be 100% disabled.” On October 23, 1996, Dr. Loomis stated, “I feel he is 100% disabled from this type of work[,] which is essentially his entire livelihood.” Susan Entenberg stated, “After reviewing the medical records/1 felt that he wasn’t a candidate for vocational rehabilitation, and really a job market didn’t exist for him at the present time.” Dr. Loomis, in referring to his discussion with Sheila Jarvis, a rehabilitation nurse employed by respondent’s rehabilitation company, CRA, stated: “In summary as you can see from the above, I have tried to consolidate this case for you since you are just taking it over, but I feel John is 100% disabled from any work whatsoever. I don’t see how he is going to be able to do it.” On August 25, 1997, Jarvis wrote a letter to claimant, stating she was closing her file because the case would “be handled from a claims perspective.” As indicated above, I believe that the arbitrator’s award, affirmed by the Commission, awarded total disability on the basis of the medical testimony.