We have received the Panel Qualified Medical Evaluation report of Dr. Albert Simpkins, dated February 22, 2017. I believe you were also served with a copy. If that is inaccurate, please let me know, and I will happily forward one to you.
Summary
Fortunately, Dr. Simpkins found the applicant permanent and stationary for all industrially related body part. In addition, Dr. Simpkins did not find any evidence for the alleged cumulative trauma claim through August 5, 2015.
Overall, Dr. Simpkins’ report is quite thorough and detailed. He did document multiple histories of the applicant’s prior injuries of overlapping body parts in detail. He also documented his review of the records, as well as the deposition summary, very thoroughly. Dr. …show more content…
Simpkins did not find evidence of causation for the alleged cumulative trauma claim through August 5, 2015. Dr. Simpkins noted the applicant explicitly indicated he had no symptoms prior to the specific injury of August 5, 2015. Therefore, I believe this is the basis for his causation opinion with respect to the alleged cumulative trauma claim.
Dr. Simpkins did find industrial causation for the specific injury of August 5, 2015, where the applicant fell from a 20-foot ladder. Dr. Simpkins documented the applicant primarily landed on his left side. Interestingly, I believe Dr. Simpkins only found the applicant had suffered an industrial injury to the right shoulder, bilateral knees and the lower back, as a result of the specific injury of August 5, 2015.
Interestingly, Dr. Simpkins did not discuss the industrial causation for the neck and head allegation. Based on Dr. Simpkins’ clinical impression, which has no mention of the neck and head injury, along with the fact that the initial medical reports documented immediately after the August 5, 2015 date of injury indicating the applicant did not lose consciousness or hit his head from the fall. In addition, Dr. Simpkins also documented the applicant injured his neck in 2012 or 2013, from a rear-end car accident. The applicant sought treatment for his neck at a chiropractic clinic. Furthermore, Dr. Simpkins documented an instance where the applicant’s head was hit by a door by his daughter. …show more content…
Simpkins assigned impairment to applicant’s right shoulder due to range of motion, as well as the arthroplasty surgery in the past.
Interestingly, Dr. Simpkins cited page 453 of the AMA Guides, which indicates that “if any contralateral ‘normal’ joint has a less than average mobility, the impairment value(s) corresponding to the uninvolved joint can serve as a baseline and are subtracted from the calculated impairment for the involved joint.” Here, Dr. Simpkins has used the contralateral side as a baseline and have, therefore, calculated the net Whole Person Impairment. He used the contralateral left uninjured side of the shoulder as the baseline.
In simpler terms, Dr. Simpkins opined the applicant’s left shoulder measurement can be used as a baseline, because it was uninjured. In his report, Dr. Simpkins notes the applicant has a limited range of motion in his uninjured left shoulder, resulting in a 7% upper extremity impairment. Dr. Simpkins also mentioned the right shoulder has a limited range of motion, resulting in an 11% upper extremity impairment. Dr. Simpkins subtracted 7% from the 11%, resulting in a net 4% upper extremity impairment to the right
Summary
Fortunately, Dr. Simpkins found the applicant permanent and stationary for all industrially related body part. In addition, Dr. Simpkins did not find any evidence for the alleged cumulative trauma claim through August 5, 2015.
Overall, Dr. Simpkins’ report is quite thorough and detailed. He did document multiple histories of the applicant’s prior injuries of overlapping body parts in detail. He also documented his review of the records, as well as the deposition summary, very thoroughly. Dr. …show more content…
Simpkins did not find evidence of causation for the alleged cumulative trauma claim through August 5, 2015. Dr. Simpkins noted the applicant explicitly indicated he had no symptoms prior to the specific injury of August 5, 2015. Therefore, I believe this is the basis for his causation opinion with respect to the alleged cumulative trauma claim.
Dr. Simpkins did find industrial causation for the specific injury of August 5, 2015, where the applicant fell from a 20-foot ladder. Dr. Simpkins documented the applicant primarily landed on his left side. Interestingly, I believe Dr. Simpkins only found the applicant had suffered an industrial injury to the right shoulder, bilateral knees and the lower back, as a result of the specific injury of August 5, 2015.
Interestingly, Dr. Simpkins did not discuss the industrial causation for the neck and head allegation. Based on Dr. Simpkins’ clinical impression, which has no mention of the neck and head injury, along with the fact that the initial medical reports documented immediately after the August 5, 2015 date of injury indicating the applicant did not lose consciousness or hit his head from the fall. In addition, Dr. Simpkins also documented the applicant injured his neck in 2012 or 2013, from a rear-end car accident. The applicant sought treatment for his neck at a chiropractic clinic. Furthermore, Dr. Simpkins documented an instance where the applicant’s head was hit by a door by his daughter. …show more content…
Simpkins assigned impairment to applicant’s right shoulder due to range of motion, as well as the arthroplasty surgery in the past.
Interestingly, Dr. Simpkins cited page 453 of the AMA Guides, which indicates that “if any contralateral ‘normal’ joint has a less than average mobility, the impairment value(s) corresponding to the uninvolved joint can serve as a baseline and are subtracted from the calculated impairment for the involved joint.” Here, Dr. Simpkins has used the contralateral side as a baseline and have, therefore, calculated the net Whole Person Impairment. He used the contralateral left uninjured side of the shoulder as the baseline.
In simpler terms, Dr. Simpkins opined the applicant’s left shoulder measurement can be used as a baseline, because it was uninjured. In his report, Dr. Simpkins notes the applicant has a limited range of motion in his uninjured left shoulder, resulting in a 7% upper extremity impairment. Dr. Simpkins also mentioned the right shoulder has a limited range of motion, resulting in an 11% upper extremity impairment. Dr. Simpkins subtracted 7% from the 11%, resulting in a net 4% upper extremity impairment to the right