DECISION AND ORDER

First Rio Valley Medical, P.A., (Provider) requested a hearing to contest a decision by Envoy Medical Systems, L.P., an independent review organization (IRO), affirming the denial by American Home Assurance Company (Carrier) of pre-authorization for eight weeks of work hardening for A.G. (Claimant). The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) holds that pre-authorization should be ordered for the requested work hardening because it is medically necessary to enhance Claimant’s ability to return to work.

I. JURISDICTION, NOTICE, AND VENUE

The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission) has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 413.031 of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), Tex. Lab. Code Ann. ch. 401 et seq. The State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) has jurisdiction over this proceeding, including the authority to issue a decision and order, pursuant to Tex. Lab. Code Ann. ‘ 413.031(k) and Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. Chapter 2003. The hearing was conducted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, Tex. Gov’t Code Ann., Chapter 2001 and SOAH’s rules, 1 Tex. Admin. Code (TAC) Chapter 155.

Notice of the hearing was sent to the parties on April 5, 2004. Notice and jurisdiction are not contested and are addressed in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set out below.

ALJ Sharon Cloninger convened the hearing on May 5, 2004. Robert Howell, D.C., owner of First Rio Valley Medical, P.A., appeared and represented himself because his attorney had a scheduling conflict. Carrier was represented by Dan C. Kelley, attorney. The hearing concluded and the record closed that same day.

II. BACKGROUND

Claimant incurred a compensable injury to her neck, shoulder, and low back on June 30, 2003, when she slipped and fell on a wet floor at work. She was diagnosed with right shoulder sprain, right elbow sprain, right wrist sprain, right hip contusion, right knee sprain, and cervical sprain. Claimant has undergone conservative treatment for her injury, including 16 physical therapy sessions, facet blocks, and trigger point injections. Although there is objective evidence that Claimant’s range of motion and flexibility have improved, she continues to report pain in her neck and right shoulder. An MRI of Claimant’s cervical spine performed on August 27, 2003, indicated degenerative changes typical for a patient her age, but nothing related to her compensable injury. A September 12, 2003 psychological evaluation showed that Claimant has psychological issues related to her compensable injury that must be addressed before she will be ready to return to work, in that she reports pain with no apparent organic cause, magnifies her symptoms, and fears re-injury. A functional capacity evaluation (FCE) conducted on January 22, 2004, indicated that Claimant is capable of doing light work, but that she needs to develop more strength and flexibility to return to her job, which requires her to climb ladders, lift products, and stoop, among other activities. No surgical intervention has been recommended.

Claimant has been treated by several doctors, including Dr. Howell, who on January 14, 2004, requested pre-authorization for eight weeks of work hardening.^[1] The initial request was denied by Carrier on January 16, 2004, and Provider’s request for reconsideration submitted January 22, 2004, was denied by Carrier on January 30, 2004. Provider then requested an appeal of Carrier’s denial before the Commission’s Medical Review Division on February 3, 2004. The Commission referred the appeal request to an IRO. On March 12, 2004, the IRO recommended non-authorization because (1) Claimant has continuing difficulties that have not been treated adequately and (2) additional consultation with a spine surgeon may lead to additional testing that reveals surgical correction of pathology is indicated before a work hardening program is pursued. On March 17, 2004, Petitioner appealed the IRO decision, which culminated in this hearing before SOAH.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Applicable Law

The only issue in this case is whether, by a preponderance of the evidence, there is medical necessity for the requested treatment. Medical necessity is defined in Tex. Labor Code Ann. ‘408.021(a), which states:

(a) An employee who sustains a compensable injury is entitled to all health care reasonably required by the nature of the injury as and when needed. The employee is specifically entitled to health care that:

1. cures or relieves the effects naturally resulting from the compensable injury;
2. promotes recovery; or
3. enhances the ability of the employee to return to or retain employment.

Under 28 TAC ‘148.21(h), the appealing party has the burden of proof in hearings, such as this one, conducted pursuant to Tex. Labor Code Ann. ‘ 413.031. Thus, Provider must prove the requested work hardening is reasonably required within the meaning of Tex. Labor Code Ann. ‘ 408.021(a).

B. Evidence

Provider’s representative testified on his own behalf, and offered one exhibit, which was admitted. Carrier offered three exhibits, which were admitted.

Provider’s testimony

Provider’s representtive testified that Claimant’s job duties fall into the Aheavy category, and that while she improved with three hours per week of physical therapy, she did not improve to the point that she could do heavy work. He said that in a work hardening program, Claimant would be doing up to 15 hours of physical therapy per week, which would be enough to prepare her to return to her job. He also said that if Claimant’s psychological issues related to her injury are not addressed, she will not get better. He said Claimant’s psychological issues would be addressed in a work hardening program. He said he does not believe Claimant needs surgery.

Documentary evidence

As early as September 29, 2003, following a mental health review of Claimant, Provider recommended a return to work program for Claimant, because an individual plan designed for her would combine physical therapy, training and work simulation to build strength, improve function, increase endurance, and decrease the possibility of re-injury.

Although Claimant’s range of motion and flexibility improved from the time she began treatment with Provider on July 7, 2003, her pain levels did not improve. She reported a pain level of 8 out of 10 at her September 9, 2003 visit with Dr. Howell, which was inconsistent with his objective findings, so he referred her to Rick Moses, Ph.D. for a psychological evaluation.

In the September 12, 2003 mental health review, Dr. Moses found that Claimant a good candidate for a work hardening program. He said she is willing to return to her job, but she is afraid of re-injury. The exam showed her to suffer from severe anxiety, severe depression, and a 73 percent deterioration in life satisfaction as the result of her injury. He found that although her condition had objectively improved, she said she had not improved.

In a September 15, 2003 peer review, John A. Gragnani, M.D., stated Claimant should be recovered from her fall and back on the job. He said her subjective pain complaints are not backed up by objective documentation that would explain continued severe pain complaints.

Claimant was seen by Gregory S. Goldsmith, M.D., on November 3, 2003. She told him that all treatments up to that date, including chiropractic care, injections, medications and rest, had minimal effect. Dr. Goldsmith reported Claimant might have regional pain syndrome in her right upper extremity and symptom magnification.

On December 17, 2003, Claimant underwent a TWCC Evaluation of Medical Care Exam and Return to Work Exam by Herman J. Keillor, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon. He found her to have no medical problem except for obesity and did not feel she needs surgery. He recommended that Claimant participate in a work hardening program for one or two months. He recommended that she do no climbing, kneeling, squatting, bending or stooping, and that she be limited to about 20 lbs of lifting.^[2]

January 22, 2004 FCE indicated Claimant qualifies for work within the Alight category, but her job requires more strength and function than that.

IV. ANALYSIS

Provider had the burden of proof in this proceeding. Pursuant to the Texas Labor Code, an employee who has sustained a compensable injury is entitled to all health care reasonably required by the nature of the injury as and when needed. Under Tex. Labor Code Ann. ‘408.021(a), the employee is specifically entitled to health care that cures or relieves the effects naturally resulting from the compensable injury, promotes recovery, or enhances the ability of the employee to return to or retain employment. In this instance, Provider proved by a preponderance of the evidence that work hardening is medically necessary for the treatment of Claimant’s condition, in that it will promote her recovery and enhance her ability to return to her job.

Claimant’s neck and shoulder pain are a result of her compensable injury, whether the pain is imagined or not. There is sufficient evidence that eight weeks of work hardening could promote Claimant’s recovery by improving her functional capacity and by addressing her injury-related psychological issues that have prevented her recovery to this point. Thus, Provider is entitled to pre-authorization of the requested treatment under Tex. Labor Code Ann. ‘ 408.021(a).

IV. FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Claimant suffered a compensable injury to her neck, right shoulder, and low back on June 30, 2003, when she slipped and fell at work.
2. American Home Assurance Company (Carrier) was Claimant’s employer’s insurance provider at the time of Claimant’s compensable injury.
3. Claimant was diagnosed with right shoulder sprain, right elbow sprain, right wrist sprain, right hip contusion, right knee sprain, and cervical sprain.
4. Claimant has been treated for her compensable injury by several doctors including Robert S. Howell, D.C., who owns First Rio Valley Medical, P.A. (Provider).
5. Claimant has undergone conservative treatment for her injury, including chiropractic treatment, 16 physical therapy sessions, facet blocks, and trigger point injections.
6. Although there is objective evidence that Claimant’s range of motion and flexibility have improved, she continues to report pain in her neck and right shoulder.
7. An MRI of Claimant’s cervical spine performed on August 27, 2003, indicated degenerative changes typical for a patient her age, but nothing related to her compensable injury.
8. A September 12, 2003 psychological evaluation showed that Claimant has psychological issues related to her compensable injury that must be addressed before she will be ready to return to work, in that she reports pain with no apparent organic cause, magnifies her symptoms, and fears re-injury.
9. A functional capacity evaluation (FCE) conducted on January 22, 2004, indicated that Claimant is capable of doing light work, but that she needs to develop more strength and flexibility to return to her job, which requires her to climb ladders, lift products, and stoop, among other activities.
10. Claimant is not a surgical candidate.
11. Eight weeks of work hardening, with up to 15 hours of physical therapy per week, could increase Claimant’s strength and function, as well as address her injury-related psychological issues, to the point that she could return to work.
12. On January 14, 2004, Provider requested pre-authorization from Carrier for Claimant to undergo 40 session of work hardening over an eight-week period, which was denied by Carrier on January 16, 2004.
13. Provider submitted a request for reconsideration on January 22, 2004, which was denied by Carrier on January 30, 2004.
14. On February 3, 2004, Provider filed a timely request with the Texas Workers= Compensation Commission (TWCC) for medical dispute resolution.
15. Provider’s request was randomly assigned to Envoy Medical Systems, L.P., an independent review organization (IRO), by the Commission’s Medical Review Division.
16. The IRO issued a decision March 12, 2004, recommending denial of Provider’s request for pre-authorization on the basis that the work hardening was not medically necessary.
17. On March 17, 2004, Provider requested a hearing before the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH).
18. Notice of the hearing was sent to the parties on April 5, 2004.
19. The notice contained a statement of the time, place, and nature of the hearing; a statement of the legal authority and jurisdiction under which the hearing was to be held; a reference to the particular sections of the statutes and rules involved; and a short, plain statement of the matters asserted.
20. Administrative Law Judge Sharon Cloninger convened the hearing May 5, 2004, in the William Clements State Office Building, 300 West 15^th Street, Fourth Floor, Austin, Texas. Provider appeared pro se, because his attorney had a scheduling conflict. Carrier was represented by Dan C. Kelley, attorney. The hearing concluded and the record closed that same day.

V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. TWCC has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 413.031 of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), Tex. Lab. Code Ann. ch. 401 et seq.
2. The State Office of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this proceeding, including the authority to issue a decision and order, pursuant to Tex. Lab. Code Ann. ‘413.031(k) and Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. Chapter. 2003.
3. The hearing was conducted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, Tex. Gov’t CodeAnn. Chapter 2001 and SOAH’s rules, 1 Tex. Admin. Code (TAC) Chapter 155.
4. Adequate and timely notice of the hearing was provided in accordance with Tex. Gov=t Code Ann.’ 2001.052.
5. Provider met his burden of proving the work hardening is medically necessary and reasonably required within the meaning of Tex. Lab. Code Ann. ‘ 408.021(a).
6. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the requested work hardening should be pre-authorized.

ORDER

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that American Home Assurance Company should pre-authorize the eight weeks of work hardening requested by Robert S. Howell, D.C., for Claimant’s treatment.

Signed May 24, 2004.

SHARON CLONINGER
Administrative Law Judge
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

1. Work hardening is an interdisciplinary approach that provides physical, functional, behavioral and psychological conditioning necessary to prepare an injured worker to return to work.↑
2. Her job requires more, according to her job description. See Provider’s Ex. 2.↑