Miller v. Brambleberry Farm, No. WC12-5464 (W.C.C.A. Jan. 15, 2013)
The issue in this case was whether substantial evidence supported the compensation
judge’s finding that the Employee’s work-related shoulder injuries were temporary
aggravations of a preexisting condition and that these temporary aggravations did not
substantially contribute to the Employee’s need for her bilateral shoulder surgeries. The
W.C.C.A. found that substantial evidence supported the compensation judge’s decision.
The employee had two separate work injuries involved in the case – she had dislocated
each of her shoulders in separate incidents. She had a surgery on each shoulder, and
then the treating surgeon recommended total shoulder replacements bilaterally. There
were two different insurers involved, and each had an IME performed. Each IME
doctor opined that the Employee’s work-related shoulder dislocations could not have
caused the degree of arthritic changes that were observed by the treating surgeon
when he performed the shoulder surgeries. They opined that the need for the shoulder
replacement surgeries was due to the underlying, pre-existing degenerative arthritis and
not to the shoulder dislocations. The compensation judge agreed with the IME doctors
and found that the work-related dislocations were temporary aggravations that were not
substantial contributing factors to the need for the shoulder replacement surgeries. The
Employee appealed, but the W.C.C.A. found that the opinions of the independent medical
examiners and the medical records themselves provided substantial evidence to support
the judge’s findings.