In Cosgrove v. CRST Dedicated Services (File No. 5068073), a claimant sustained a scalp laceration after striking his head while docking his semi on 11/1/18. As a result of the incident, Claimant was transported to Waterbury (Connecticut) Hospital. While at Waterbury, Claimant underwent a battery of tests that were essentially non-remarkable with the exception of an electroencephalogram (EEG) which showed abnormal results due to mild generalized slowing; however, no seizure discharges were observed. Claimant was discharged from Waterbury on 11/3/18 and upon discharge was instructed to avoid heavy lifting and commercial driving. Claimant’s hospital discharge paperwork included an informational summary of transient ischemic attacks (TIA). After reviewing his discharge paperwork, including the TIA informational sheet, Claimant believed he sustained a TIA during the 11/1/18 incident based on the fact that the TIA document was included in his hospital discharge papers. However, Claimant admitted that a TIA diagnosis was never made at Waterbury or by any other medical provider. Claimant was released from care and placed at MMI on 11/15/18. Claimant was instructed to undergo a Department of Transportation “Return To Work” physical before returning to commercial driving to rule out any underlying non-work-related conditions.
After his release from care on 11/15/18, Claimant did not undergo the recommended DOT physical until 7/3/20 and instead indicated that he “wanted to go through the workers’ comp process before returning to work.” Claimant passed the DOT physical and was found qualified to operate a commercial vehicle though 7/3/22.
At hearing, Claimant argued he was entitled to healing period benefits from the date of injury until 4/2/20 – the date in which Claimant began the process of seeking clearance to return to commercial driving. In the decision, the deputy rejected Claimant’s argument and found that Claimant was entitled to healing period benefits from the date of injury until he was released and placed at MMI on 11/15/18. This amounted to 1.43 weeks of temporary total disability benefits.
Claimant also sought reimbursement of his IME report pursuant to Iowa Code section 85.39, or alternatively, as a hearing cost pursuant to 876 IAC 4.36(6). After finding that the defendant did not obtain an impairment rating, the deputy denied reimbursement under section 85.39.
In their post-hearing brief, defendant pointed out that Claimant did not so much as reference his IME report during hearing and therefore the request for reimbursement of the IME report under 876 IAC 4.36(6) should be denied. Ultimately, the deputy declined to award any hearing costs to Claimant, including Claimant’s request for reimbursement of his IME report.
Decision can be found at: http://decisions.iowaworkforce.org/2020/October/Cosgrove,%20John-5068073D.pdf
