Van
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Sep 2008
|
Monday September 08, 2008 10:38 AM
|
|
DOI 6/25/01
AME report: 6/12/03 - The doctor indicated that Injured Worker was "probably not QIW unless she is correct in stating that she truly was lifting 100lb for the Employer. Professional job analysis will be obtained." However, the doctor gives work restrictions.
Stipulation with Request for Award: 10/21/03 - "VRMA to be deferred until AME determines QIW status.
Formal Job Analysis:3/31/04 - No indication that Injured Worker was lifting 100 lbs. for the Employer.
New & Further: Filed 4//
5/17/06: Request for VR from A/A, pending AME report.
9/12/06: AME re-examination. Doctor fails to comment on VR status in his report.
2/26/08 - AME supplemental report finds Injured Worker QIW, and states it is because the Injured Worker "cannot perform each and every one of the tasks required of her on the job, based upon the prophylactic work restriction I imposed upon her."
A/A filed a RU103 requesting VR from the original P&S date of 6/12/03, and the Rehab Unit has found in her favor.
My question is - is there retro VR from 6/12/03 even though AME did not issue a report finding QIW until 2/26/08? In his report dated 6/12/03, he indicates that Injured Worker is not QIW unless she lifts over 100 lbs for the Employer. The formal job analysis did not indicate that she lifts 100 lbs for the Employer. But the report in 2/26/08 which found QIW does comment that she is QIW based on the other work restrictions outlined in the original P&S report. Since DOI was 2001, is there an issue regarding statute? There was tremendous delay in getting the AME report to comment on QIW status - is this a good argument for either side to make in regards to retro VR?
Thanks in advance for any help.
|
|
