• PRINT THIS PAGE

Wuttke v. Aldi Foods

Respondent prevails on issue of whether surgery is required

The case of Wuttke v. Aldi Foods, 07 WC 10783, was tried by Mark Vizza. The respondent prevailed when the arbitrator adopted the opinions of respondent's independent medical evaluation physician on the issue of whether petitioner requires surgery.

The petitioner testified that on August 4, 2006, he was employed by the respondent and a forklift ran over both feet. Subsequent to that, he was seen at the hospital and began treating with Dr. Komanduri. At one point, Dr. Komanduri recommended a second opinion and he recommended either Dr. Vargo or Dr. Holmes. The petitioner elected to have a second opinion with Dr. Vargo, and the respondent sent the petitioner to Dr. Holmes for an independent medical evaluation.

Both Dr. Vargo and Dr. Holmes did not recommend any surgery. Subsequent to those visits, petition was released from Dr. Komanduri's care. He then returned to Dr. Komanduri who changed his treatment recommendation, and recommended surgery. Temporary total disability benefits were suspended concurrent with Dr. Holmes' report.

At arbitration, the petitioner requested temporary total disability benefits from the date of Dr. Holmes' report to the date of arbitration. He also requested that the surgery recommended by Dr. Komanduri be authorized. The arbitrator found that the petitioner's complaints of ankle pain were not related to the accident of August 4, 2006. The arbitrator found that as Dr. Komanduri deferred recommendation and treatment to Dr. Vargo and Dr. Holmes, who both found the petitioner was not in need of any surgery, that the petitioner's current condition of ill-being is not causally related to the accident of August 4, 2006. The arbitrator awarded temporary total disability benefits through the date of Dr. Holmes' report, all of which had previously been paid by the respondent. The arbitrator further found that the surgery recommended by Dr. Komanduri is not related to any accident arising out of and in the course of the petitioner's employment with the respondent on August 4, 2006.