NEWS / Legal News - May 2021
The Minnesota Supreme Court Recently Issued a Decision on Rare Case Exceptions
Rare Case Exceptions
Leuthard v. ISD 912
FACTS
The employee sustained a neck injury which resulted in chronic pain. As part of her treatment, she received facet joint injections. She received over 20 injections during an eleven-year time period. Ultimately, the employer and insurer denied payment for additional injections in reliance upon the treatment parameter cap of three injections.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
At a hearing, the employee argued that she qualified for a departure from the three injection limit. The compensation judge denied her claims, but found her credible. The judge relied upon her medical records, which documented only a minor reduction in pain, limited improvement in objective findings, no change in functional status, and worsening symptoms.
The employee appealed to the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA). The WCCA reversed the decision. It held that the compensation judge could not find the employee's testimony credible, but at the same time find that she did not qualify for a departure. The WCCA also stated that the compensation judge should have considered whether the employee qualified as a rare case exception. Under the law, if the employee is a rare case exception, the treatment parameters do not apply. The employee did not raise the rare case exception at hearing.
SUPREME COURT DECISION
The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the WCCA decision, stating that there was no contradiction between accepting as credible the employee's testimony and finding that the medical records did not support a departure from the parameters. As to the rare case exception issue, it held that the WCCA should not have addressed the issue as it was not argued at the hearing.
LOOKING FORWARD
It is extremely important to gather all relevant medical records to provide the judge with complete information when a determination is needed whether medical treatment complies with the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Treatment Parameters.
View the decision here.
THIS CONTENT IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND PRIOR TO TAKING ANY ACTION BASED ON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED ABOVE, YOU SHOULD SEEK ADVICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT OUR OFFICE WITH ANY QUESTIONS.
View the decision here.
THIS CONTENT IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND PRIOR TO TAKING ANY ACTION BASED ON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED ABOVE, YOU SHOULD SEEK ADVICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT OUR OFFICE WITH ANY QUESTIONS.
