Ankin Law Attorney, Scott Goldstein recently represented an IATSE (Theatrical Wardrobe Union) member who was injured as he moved a crate of costumes weighing approximately 150–200 pounds into a storage container. The man was working as a key costumer for Entertainment Partners Enterprises where his daily job tasks included procuring, preparing, hauling, organizing, and providing general care for all costumes during television productions. As he moved the crate, he sustained injuries to his right wrist and right arm. He reported the injuries to his employer on the same day and sought treatment two days later. He has not been able to work since the accident. After several doctor appointments, surgeries and therapies proved of little help, his doctors diagnosed him with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) and recommended a spinal cord stimulator procedure to ease his pain. This was a major sticking point during the proceedings but the arbitrator ruled in favor of the doctor’s opinion.
The arbitrator decided the key costumer is entitled to:
–Medical Benefits for all reasonable and necessary medical services incurred in the amount of $28,182.41
–Temporary Total Disability Benefits of $1,848.20/week for 117 2/7 weeks
–Prospective Medical Care for the highly contested CRPS diagnosis including the spinal cord stimulator procedure. This includes all associated post-surgical care as recommended by his treating physician.
[Read the full Arbitrator Decision here]
The injuries sustained were a right elbow tendon tear, right wrist triangular fibrocartilage complex, and cervical radiculopathy. His doctor recommended and performed a right distal biceps tendon repair surgery, and right wrist arthroscopic surgery. After the surgeries, he underwent physical therapy and pain therapies but he continued to have significant pain. His doctor suspected CRPS in the right upper extremity and sent him to a pain management specialist who confirmed the CRPS diagnosis. This new clinic tried stellate ganglion block injections and a Ketamine infusion that provided only about ten days of relief. After exhausting all other treatment options, his doctor recommended implantation of the spinal cord stimulator to manage CRPS. This solution was rejected by his employers.
The CRPS diagnosis and need for the spinal cord stimulator was vigourously contested by Entertainment Partners Enterprises during trial but Mr. Goldstein was able to show the arbitrator that the doctor’s recommendations were the fair and reasonable course of action.
Below is a brief summary and key legal findings from the arbitration:
Petitioner’s Credibility
The arbitrator found the petitioner to be credible, noting his testimony was:
Straightforward and consistent with the medical records.
Not exaggerated (no “symptom magnification” noted by treating doctors).
Any minor inconsistencies were not interpreted as deceptive.
Medical Evidence
The arbitrator favored the opinion of Dr. M, the treating physician, over the Independent Medical Examiner (IME) Dr. C.
Dr. M documented objective signs of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) using the Budapest Criteria, including:
Allodynia
Skin color changes
Swelling
Tremors
Grip strength reduction
Dr. C, on the other hand, stated there was no objective evidence of CRPS, which the arbitrator found inaccurate and unpersuasive.
Additional Medical Support
Another IME, Dr. B, was also deemed credible regarding orthopedic injuries and surgical needs, supporting causation between the injury and work duties.
Outcome
Based on:
-The credible testimony of the petitioner,
-The objective medical findings of Dr. M,
-And the corroborating opinion of Dr. B,
The arbitrator awarded the Petitioner the workers’ compensation (WC) benefits sought.
Review
This decision reinforces the principle that treating physician opinions (especially when using recognized diagnostic criteria like the Budapest Criteria) can carry more weight than an IME’s, especially when the IME overlooks documented findings.
Credibility findings by the arbitrator are given significant deference and can be determinative in close cases.
It highlights that objective findings are not required to the exclusion of subjective complaints, especially in CRPS cases, where diagnosis often includes both.
