Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sherwood v. Watkins & Shepard Trucking

Court of Workers Compensation of Montana

December 30, 2010

SCOTT SHERWOOD Petitioner
v.
WATKINS & SHEPARD TRUCKING Respondent/Insurer.

          Submitted: December 29, 2010

          For the Petitioner: Norman H. Grosfield Attorney at Law

          For the Respondent: Leo S. Ward Attorney at Law

          Court Reporter: Kim Johnson, RPR

          DECISION AND JUDGMENT

         Summary: Petitioner requests that he be evaluated at Respondent's expense by Dr. Bill Rosen regarding chronic pain and medication intake issues. Respondent requests the Court to require Petitioner to undergo an evaluation in a multi-disciplinary setting at the Rehabilitation Institute of Washington. Both parties request direction on the appropriate course to address Petitioner's drug addiction.

         Held: In a bench ruling, the Court concluded that Petitioner presented no evidence that a new evaluation by Dr. Rosen would yield different results than the evaluation Dr. Rosen conducted in 2009. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to a new evaluation by Dr. Rosen. Although Respondent established that the Rehabilitation Institute of Washington is the closest available place to provide Petitioner with the in-patient treatment both parties agree is needed, it has not been established that the Rehabilitation Institute of Washington is the closest available place to provide the evaluation for such treatment. Respondent shall investigate whether the Rehabilitation Institute of Washington will accept an evaluation performed by Montana physicians and whether Montana physicians are available to perform the required evaluation closer to Petitioner's home. If the evaluation can be done closer to Petitioner's home, it shall be done as close as practical to Petitioner's home in accordance with § 39-71-605(1)(b), MCA. If the Rehabilitation Institute of Washington is the closest practical location to accomplish the evaluation, the evaluation may be conducted at the Rehabilitation Institute of Washington.

         ¶1 The trial in this matter was held on December 29, 2010, in the Workers' Compensation Court, Helena, Montana. Petitioner Scott Sherwood was present and represented by Norman H. Grosfield. Respondent Watkins & Shepard Trucking was represented by Leo S. Ward.

         ¶ 2 Exhibits: Exhibits 1 through 4 were admitted without objection. The exhibits from the underlying proceeding, WCC No. 2008-2181, were used by the parties in the current proceeding per stipulation.

         ¶ 3 Witnesses and Depositions: The parties agreed that the depositions of Scott Sherwood, Catherine Capps, M.D., Joseph K. McElhinny, Psy.D., and Bill S. Rosen, M.D., taken in the underlying proceeding, can be considered part of the record. Scott Sherwood and Michael Kim Stevens were sworn and testified at trial.

         ¶ 4 Issues Presented: The Pretrial Order states the following contested issues of law:

Issue 1: Whether Scott Sherwood may be evaluated at the expense of Watkins & Shepard Trucking by Bill Rosen, M.D., regarding chronic pain and medication intake issues.
Issue 2: What is the appropriate course to address Scott Sherwood's drug addiction?[1]

         ¶ 5 Counsel stipulated that the ruling herein shall not impact in any way the ruling on the motion for reconsideration in the underlying case, WCC No. 2008-2181.

         ¶ 6 After considering the trial testimony, depositions, exhibits, and the arguments of the parties, I issued a bench ruling pursuant to ARM 24.5.335. The reasoning for my ruling on the contested issues is set forth in the attached transcript. The rulings are as follows:

         Issue 1: Whether Scott Sherwood may be evaluated at the expense of Watkins & Shepard Trucking by Bill Rosen, M.D., regarding chronic pain and medication intake issues.

          7 Petitioner has presented no evidence that a new evaluation by Dr. Rosen will yield any different results or recommendations than his evaluation from July 13, 2009.[2]A second evaluation would be redundant. Respondent is not responsible for the expense of a new evaluation by Dr. Rosen.

         Issue 2: What is the appropriate course to address Scott Sherwood's drug addiction?

          8 The parties agree that Sherwood should be evaluated for his suitability for an in-patient pain management program to address Sherwood's chronic pain problem and pain medication dependency. Based on the evidence presented, I am satisfied that the Rehabilitation Institute of Washington is the closest available place to provide this in-patient treatment. However, it has not been established that Rehabilitation Institute of Washington is the closest available place to provide the evaluation for such treatment. Watkins & Shepard shall investigate whether the Rehabilitation Institute of Washington will accept an evaluation performed by Montana physicians and whether Montana physicians are available to perform the required evaluation closer to Sherwood's home. If the evaluation can be done closer to Sherwood's home, it shall be done as close as practical to Sherwood's home in accordance with § 39-71-605(1)(b), MCA. If the Rehabilitation Institute of Washington is the closest practical location to accomplish the evaluation, the evaluation may be conducted at the Rehabilitation Institute of Washington.

         ¶ 9 The Court will retain jurisdiction over this matter for 30 days, by which time the parties will report back to the Court as to the resolution of where Petitioner's evaluation will be conducted. If any clarifications or further Court involvement is necessary to facilitate the resolution of this issue, the parties shall contact the Court.

         JUDGMENT

         ¶10 The transcript of the bench ruling shall constitute the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.