BOARD No. 043522-94Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents
Filed: April 30, 1998
REVIEWING BOARD DECISION
(Judges Levine, Wilson and Fischel).
APPEARANCES
Richard H. Schwartz, Esq., for the employee.
Scott A. Smith, Esq., for the self-insurer.
LEVINE, J.
The employee appeals a decision in which an administrative judge denied and dismissed her claim for incapacity and medical benefits due to an industrial injury that occurred on October 12, 1994. Because we agree with the employee that the judge erred by failing to address the employee’s claim for the payment of medical bills under §§ 13 and 30, we recommit the case for further findings.
The employee injured her left shoulder and neck while working as a toll booth collector. The self-insurer paid benefits without prejudice. The employee returned to work on March 13, 1995, and worked until June 2, 1995, when she was terminated. (Dec. 2, 4-5.) The employee then filed the present claim for incapacity and medical benefits related to the October 12, 1994 incident. (Dec. 2-3.) The self-insurer denied the claim. (Dec. 3.)
The employee was examined by an impartial physician pursuant to § 11A. The doctor diagnosed a cervical strain, opined that there were no indications of medical disability or neurological impairment, and stated that she could return to work without limitation. (Dec. 7.) The impartial physician testified at his deposition that the employee’s December 1995 MRI study was a reasonable diagnostic procedure. (Dep. 23-24, 46.) The doctor also testified that, based on the employee’s history, the employee’s headaches were causally related to the industrial accident. (Dep. 28-30.) The judge concluded that the employee had suffered an industrial accident on October 12, 1994. (Dec. 8.) However, she rejected the employee’s claim of present disability, and concluded that she was “not entitled to any benefits.” (Dec. 10.)
The employee on appeal argues one issue; namely, that the judge erred by failing to order payment of reasonable medical care for the industrial injury so found. The employee is correct that the judge failed to address that aspect of the employee’s claim. “An employee may not be incapacitated in the sense that [she] is incapable of performing remunerative work, but may still need medical treatment.” Colon v. Andover Courtyard/Marriott, 9 Mass. Workers’ Comp. Rep. 9, 11 (1995). Debrosky v. Oxford Manor NursingHome, 11 Mass. Workers’ Comp. Rep. 243, 245 (1997). The self-insurer denied entitlement to medical benefits. (Dec. 3; Self-Insurer Ex. #1.) The employee testified to the medical treatment she received, (Tr. I, 18-31), and the impartial physician was examined as to the reasonableness of some of that treatment. Where payment for medical treatment was an “issue in controversy” requiring the judge to render a decision on that issue, we think that recommittal is appropriate in light of the judge’s omission to do so. See §§ 11B, 11C. While the self-insurer argues that the judge did not need to address the medical benefit claim, because she did not find liability for an industrial accident, the judge’s finding at Dec. 8 is clear: “I find that the employee injured herself in the course of employment with the employer on October 12, 1994. That injury arose out of and in the course of employment with the employer.” In the face of the judge’s finding of liability, she needed to address the employee’s medical benefit claim. See Tigano v. Acme Boot Co., 8 Mass. Workers’ Comp. Rep. 145, 148 (1994).
We recommit the case for further findings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
_____________________ Frederick E. Levine Administrative Law Judge
_____________________ Sara Holmes Wilson Administrative Law Judge
_____________________ Carolynn N. Fischel Administrative Law Judge
FEL/kai
Filed: April 30, 1998