All About the Experts: Rebutting the Parsons Presumption

by Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog LLP
Contact

The Thornton decision is guided by the Parsons presumption, which holds that when additional medical treatment for a compensable injury is required, a rebuttable presumption arises in favor of the claimant that the treatment is directly related to the original compensable injury.

This claim arose from a back injury that occurred in July 1998 when plaintiff sat down in a chair at work, heard a sudden “pop,” and fell to the floor.  Plaintiff’s claim was accepted and defendants paid medical and indemnity benefits as a result of the injury.  It was determined that plaintiff reached maximum medical improvement in July 2001 and was assigned a 20 percent impairment rating to her spine.

Plaintiff underwent an extensive course of treatment for more than a decade following her injury.  Treatment highlights included a bilateral lumbar laminectomy, a spinal fusion with hardware placement, a three-level spinal fusion, a bilateral medial branch block, and injections.  All were authorized and paid for by defendants.

Two facts were particularly relevant to this claim on appeal.  First, defendants suspended plaintiff’s medical benefits for approximately a year and a half as a result of plaintiff abusing alcohol and cocaine from 2006 to 2009.  Second, plaintiff fell for a second time in February 2009 when she was knocked down in a store.

In 2013, Dr. William Richardson recommended that plaintiff undergo a rhizotomy, which defendants refused to authorize.  In support of their refusal, defendants obtained the opinions of two experts.  Dr. Bruce LeForce concluded that the recommended rhizotomy procedure was related to plaintiff’s original compensable injury, but did not believe it was medically necessary.  Dr. Mark Foster concluded that plaintiff’s current pain was not related to her original compensable injury because plaintiff had reached maximum medical improvement and her pain had been controlled with Tylenol until 2007.

This matter was heard at the deputy commissioner level in August 2014.  An Opinion and Award was entered in April 2015 ordering defendants to pay for the rhizotomy treatment.  Defendants appealed to the Full Commission who affirmed the deputy commissioner’s award based primarily upon the following testimony provided by Dr. Richardson and Dr. Foster.

Dr. Richardson testified he had performed thousands of rhizotomies, and in his experience, 80 percent of patients who had successful diagnostic blocks responded well to rhizotomies.  He testified, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that plaintiff’s need for a rhizotomy was related to her original compensable injury.  Dr. Richardson testified that, given plaintiff’s substance abuse history, trying the non-medication route with rhizotomy treatment seemed appropriate.  He also testified that the February 2009 incident in which plaintiff was knocked down in a store likely exacerbated her pre-existing low back condition, which was related to the original compensable injury.

Dr. Foster testified that he had not examined plaintiff, but felt that plaintiff’s current condition was related to the February 2009 fall.  He testified that he could not say to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that plaintiff’s current low back condition was unrelated to her original compensable injury.  Dr. Foster also testified that a rhizotomy would not be an unreasonable procedure for plaintiff to try.

The Parsons presumption holds that when additional medical treatment for the compensable injury is required, a rebuttable presumption arises that the treatment is directly related to the original compensable injury and the employer has the burden of producing evidence establishing that the treatment is not directly related to the original compensable injury.  Here, the Commission concluded that in accordance with the holding in Parsons, plaintiff was entitled to a presumption that her current lower back pain was causally related to her compensable injury; and based upon the above testimony, defendants had failed to rebut this presumption.  The Commission further concluded that even if defendants had rebutted the Parsons presumption (shifting the causation burden back to plaintiff), Dr. Richardson’s testimony established a causal relationship between plaintiff’s current back condition and her compensable accident, therefore establishing plaintiff’s burden.

Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals arguing that competent evidence had been offered to rebut the presumption that plaintiff’s current lower back condition was directly related to her original compensable injury.  Specifically, defendants argued that plaintiff’s February 2009 fall constituted an independent, intervening cause responsible for plaintiff’s current lower back condition.  As a result, defendants argued that the recommended rhizotomy was attributable to plaintiff’s subsequent 2009 fall rather than her original 1998 compensable injury.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Full Commission decision, holding that defendants failed to rebut the Parsons presumption.

First, the Court of Appeals pointed out that the veracity of Dr. Richardson’s testimony outweighed the testimony offered by Dr. Foster.  Among other factors, the Court of Appeals specifically noted that Dr. Foster could not testify to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that plaintiff’s pain and symptoms after her February 2009 fall were unrelated to her original compensable injury.

Second, the Court of Appeals specifically addressed defendants’ contention that plaintiff’s February 2009 fall constituted an intervening cause independently responsible for plaintiff’s current lower back condition.  The Court of Appeals referenced the Horne case which held that an aggravation of a compensable injury is also compensable, unless it is the result of an independent intervening cause attributable to claimant’s “own intentional conduct”.  Here, the Court of Appeals indicated that there was no evidence in the record that plaintiff’s 2009 fall was attributable to her “own intentional conduct.”

Lastly, for the sake of argument, the Court of Appeals held that even if defendants had rebutted the Parsons presumption, Dr. Richardson’s testimony standing alone provided competent evidence to support the Commission’s finding that plaintiff’s current lower back injury was causally related to her original compensable injury.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog LLP
Contact
more
less

Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!