Goldstein Helps Injured Theatrical Wardrobe Union Member Receive Spinal Cord Stimulator

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.
In arbitration, the man was awarded:
-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.

1. ILLINOIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DECISION SIGNATURE PAGE
Case Number 23WC
Case Name v. Entertainment Partners
Enterprises LLC
Consolidated Cases
Proceeding Type 19(b) Petition
Decision Type Arbitration Decision
Commission Decision Number
Number of Pages of Decision 12
Decision Issued By Arbitrator
Petitioner Attorney Scott Goldstein
Respondent Attorney
DATE FILED: 10/17/2025

INTEREST RATE WEEK OF OCTOBER 15 2025 3.69%

2. STATE OF ILLINOIS )

Injured Workers’ Benefit Fund (§4(d))
)SS.
Rate Adjustment Fund (§8(g))
COUNTY OF COOK )
Second Injury Fund (§8(e)18)

None of the above

ILLINOIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

ARBITRATION DECISION
19(b)
Case # 23 WC
Employee/Petitioner

v. Consolidated cases: N/A

Entertainment Partners Enterprises, LLC
Employer/Respondent

An Application for Adjustment of Claim was filed in this matter, and a Notice of Hearing was mailed to each
party. The matter was heard by the Honorable , Arbitrator of the Commission, in the city of
Chicago, on July 30, 2025. After reviewing all of the evidence presented, the Arbitrator hereby makes
findings on the disputed issues checked below, and attaches those findings to this document.

DISPUTED ISSUES

A. Was Respondent operating under and subject to the Illinois Workers' Compensation or
Occupational Diseases Act?

B. Was there an employee-employer relationship?

C. Did an accident occur that arose out of and in the course of Petitioner's employment by
Respondent?

D. What was the date of the accident?

E. Was timely notice of the accident given to Respondent?

F. Is Petitioner's current condition of ill-being causally related to the injury?

G. What were Petitioner's earnings?

H. What was Petitioner's age at the time of the accident?

I. What was Petitioner's marital status at the time of the accident?

J. Were the medical services that were provided to Petitioner reasonable and necessary? Has
Respondent paid all appropriate charges for all reasonable and necessary medical services?

K. Is Petitioner entitled to any prospective medical care?

L. What temporary benefits are in dispute?
TPD Maintenance TTD

M. Should penalties or fees be imposed upon Respondent?

N. Is Respondent due any credit?

O. Other 8(a) – spinal cord stimulator

ICArbDec19(b) 4/22 Web site: www.iwcc.il.gov

3. FINDINGS

On the date of accident, May 1, 2023, Respondent was operating under and subject to the provisions of
the Act.

On this date, an employee-employer relationship did exist between Petitioner and Respondent.

On this date, Petitioner did sustain an accident that arose out of and in the course of employment.

Timely notice of this accident was given to Respondent.

Petitioner's current condition of ill-being is causally related to the accident.

In the year preceding the injury, Petitioner earned $89,373.88; the AWW was $2,883.03.

On the date of accident, Petitioner was 45 years of age, single with 0 dependent children.

Respondent has not paid all medical charges for all reasonable & necessary medical services.

Respondent shall be given a credit of $192,212.80 for TTD, $0 for TPD, $0 for maintenance, and $0
for other benefits, for a total credit of $192,212.80.

Respondent is entitled to a credit of $0 under Section 8(j) of the Act.

Medical Benefits
Respondent shall pay the reasonable and necessary medical services incurred by Petitioner in the amount of
$28,182.41, as provided in Section 8(a) of the Act. Specifically, Respondent shall pay reasonable and necessary
medical services, pursuant to the medical fee schedule amounts, of $9,599.50 to Orthopedic Network,
$3,548.28 to Anesthesia Consultants, $3,090.00 to Orthopaedics , $4,554.21 to
Pharmacy, and $7,390.42 to Physical Therapy as provided in Sections 8(a) and 8.2 of the Act.

Temporary Total Disability
Respondent shall pay Petitioner temporary total disability benefits of $1,848.20/week for 117 2/7 weeks
commencing 05/02/2023 through 07/30/2025, as provided in Section 8(b) of the Act.
Respondent shall also be given a credit of $192,212.80 against this award, for the temporary total disability
benefits that have been paid.

Prospective Medical Care
Petitioner is awarded the spinal cord stimulator procedure as recommended by his treating physician,
, and all associated post-surgical care, under Section 8(a) of the Act.

In no instance shall this award be a bar to subsequent hearing and determination of an additional amount of
medical benefits or compensation for a temporary or permanent disability, if any.

RULES REGARDING APPEALS Unless a party files a Petition for Review within 30 days after receipt of this decision, and
perfects a review in accordance with the Act and Rules, then this decision shall be entered as the decision of the Commission.
STATEMENT OF INTEREST RATE If the Commission reviews this award, interest at the rate set forth on the Notice of Decision
of Arbitrator shall accrue from the date listed below to the day before the date of payment; however, if an employee's appeal
results in either no change or a decrease in this award, interest shall not accrue.
_

4. 1

STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS
COUNTY OF COOK )

ILLINOIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. )
) Case No. 23WC
Entertainment Partners Enterprises LLC, )
)
)
Respondent. )

RIDER TO DECISION

This matter proceeded to hearing on July 30, 2025, in Chicago, Illinois before Arbitrator
on the Petitioner’s Petition for Immediate Hearing under Section 19(b) and
Section 8(a). Issues in dispute include causation, medical bills, TTD, and prospective medical
treatment. See Arbitrator’s Exhibit 1 (“Ax1”).

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background
Petitioner is employed as a key costumer for Respondent. Petitioner’s daily job tasks entail
procuring, preparing, hauling, organizing, and general care for all costumes in the costume
department during production of television programs (TR. at 11). On May 1, 2023, Petitioner
was moving a cardboard crate of costumes weighing approximately 150-200 pounds into a
storage container when he injured his right wrist and right arm (TR. 13, 14). Petitioner reported
his injuries to Respondent on May 1, 2023 (TR. at 14).

Summary of Medical Treatment
Petitioner initially sought medical treatment from his primary care physician, Dr. ,
on May 3, 2023 (TR. at 14). Dr. placed Petitioner off work during this time (TR. at 15).
Petitioner sought follow up medical treatment in June of 2023 after being referred to an
orthopedic specialist by Dr. (TR. at 16). Petitioner initially saw Dr. for an
orthopedic evaluation (TR. at 16). Dr. referred Petitioner to have an MRI of his right wrist
and right arm on August 9, 2023 (TR. at 16). After initially seeing Dr. , Petitioner elected to
seek a second orthopedic opinion with Dr. S at Orthopedics at (TR.
at 16) (Pet. Ex. #2). Petitioner began active treatment with Dr. S at Orthopedics
at consisting of an MRI of his right wrist, an MRI of his right arm, an MRI of his cervical
spine, physical therapy, and a subsequent surgical referral (TR. at 19-20, 58-59) (Pet. Ex. #2).

5. 2

Dr. S diagnosed Petitioner with a right elbow biceps tendon tear, a right wrist TFCC tear,
and cervical radiculopathy (TR. at 58) (Pet. Ex. #2). Dr. S recommended surgery for
Petitioner’s right distal bicep tendon (Pet. Ex. #2).

On October 12, 2023, Petitioner underwent a right distal bicep tendon repair surgery performed
by Dr. S (TR. at 58) (Pet. Ex #2 at 457). Dr. S subsequently performed a right
wrist arthroscopic surgery on Petitioner on January 29, 2024 (TR. at 19-20, 59) (Pet. Ex. #2 at
440). Petitioner underwent a course of physical therapy for his right wrist and right arm at
therapy after his surgeries (TR. at 20, 59) (Pet. Ex. #5). Petitioner continued to report
significant levels of pain in his right arm and right wrist after his surgeries (Pet. Ex. #3 at 53).
Petitioner was placed at maximum medical improvement regarding only his orthopedic care on
July 23, 2025 by Dr. S (Pet. Ex. #8).

On April 9, 2024, Dr. S referred Petitioner for pain management to address complex
regional pain syndrome (CRPS) in Petitioner’s right upper extremity (Pet. Ex. #2, #3 at 53).
Petitioner began pain management treatment at Orthopedic Network with Dr.
M on August 14, 2024 (Pet. Ex. #3 at 68). Dr. M diagnosed Petitioner with
CRPS of his right upper extremity and recommended that Petitioner have a series of right stellate
ganglion block injections (Pet. Ex. #3 at 68). Petitioner underwent a series of right stellate
ganglion block injections which provided only temporary relief lasting approximately 10 days
(Pet. Ex. #3 at 89) (TR. at 23). Dr. M then recommended Petitioner undergo a ketamine
infusion. Petitioner had the ketamine infusion on November 6, 2024 (Pet. Ex #3 at 92). Prior to
May 1, 2023, Petitioner testified that he did not have pain in his right arm or right wrist or any
treatment for his right arm or right wrist (TR. at 27).

After exhausting all other pain management measures, Dr. M recommended a spinal
cord stimulator for Petitioner’s diagnosis of CRPS (Pet. Ex. #3 at 114-115). Petitioner remains
off work pending his spinal cord stimulator authorization by his pain management physician, Dr.
M (Pet. Ex. #3).

Section 12 Examiners
Respondent initially sent Petitioner to an independent medical examination conducted by Dr.
C on April 29, 2024 (Res. Ex. #1). Dr. C documents in his IME Report
that Petitioner likely has entrapment neuropathies given Petitioner’s ongoing pain, but disputes
Petitioner having CRPS. Dr. C indicates his CRPS dispute is based on the lack of
objective evidence of CRPS including the lack of color abnormality, temperature changes, and
lack of abnormal hair growth in Petitioner among the other indications (Resp. Ex. #1). Dr.
C recommended Petitioner to have an EMG to address the possibility of entrapment
neuropathies (Res. Ex. #1). Dr. C denied any evidence of symptom magnification or
malingering by Petitioner when asked by Respondent (Res. Ex. #1). Subsequent to the first IME,
on October 11, 2024, Petitioner underwent an EMG diagnostic test which resulted in no
abnormal findings (Pet. Ex. #3 at 85).

6. 3

Respondent then sent Petitioner for an independent medical examination with orthopedic doctor,
Dr. B on December 5, 2024 (Res. Ex #2). Dr. Bfound Petitioner’s
orthopedic treatment for the distal biceps and wrist ligament tears to be reasonable and necessary
(Res. Ex. #2). Dr. B specifically defers any opinion addressing Petitioner’s CRPS to a pain
management specialist (Res. Ex. #2). Dr. B did not note malingering or symptom
magnification.

On April 2, 2025, Dr. Cwrote an IME Addendum Report (Res. Ex. #3). Dr. C finds
in his addendum that because the EMG test showed no abnormalities, there is no identifiable
nerve entrapment and that this“muddies the waters” for the reasoning of his positive Tinel’s
signs at the right elbow and wrist found on his previous physical evaluation (Res. Ex. #3).

Petitioner testified at length about discoloration in his right arm. Further, Petitioner’s Exhibit #7,
documents Petitioner’s abnormal splotchy red discoloration in his right arm and right wrist as
well as some hair growth (Pet. Ex. #7) (TR. at 35-47). Petitioner testified that his hair growth on
his right arm and right wrist has become splotchy in places and has become thicker and longer in
certain areas (TR. at 43). Petitioner’s Exhibit #7m shows purple discoloration on his right arm
compared to his left arm where the purple discoloration is not present (Pet. Ex. #7) (TR. at 46).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Arbitrator adopts the above Findings of Fact in support of the Conclusions of Law set forth
below. Decisions of an arbitrator shall be based exclusively on the evidence in the record of the
proceeding and material that has been officially noticed. 820 ILCS 305/1.1(e). The Arbitrator, as
the trier of fact in this case, has the responsibility to observe the witnesses testify, judge their
credibility, and determine how much weight to afford their testimony and the other evidence
presented. Walker v. Chicago Housing Authority, 2015 IL App (1
st
) 133788, ¶ 47. Credibility is
the quality of a witness which renders his evidence worthy of belief. The Arbitrator, whose
province it is to evaluate witness credibility, evaluates the demeanor of the witness and any
external inconsistencies with his/her testimony. Where a claimant’s testimony is inconsistent with
his/her actual behavior and conduct, the Commission has held that an award cannot stand.
McDonald v. Industrial Commission, 39 Ill. 2d 396 (1968); Swift v. Industrial Commission, 52 Ill.
2d 490 (1972).

In the case at hand, the Arbitrator observed Petitioner during the hearing and finds him to be a
credible witness. The Arbitrator compared Petitioner’s testimony with the totality of the evidence
submitted and did not find any significant contradictions that would deem the witness unreliable.
The Arbitrator notes that none of the physicians who treated him or examined him noted any
symptom magnification during their examinations.

The Arbitrator finds Petitioner’s testimony to be straight forward, truthful, and consistent with the
records as a whole. Any inconsistencies in his testimony are not attributed to an attempt to deceive
the finder of fact. The Arbitrator also finds Dr. M to be more credible than IME Dr.
C, regarding Petitioner’s CRPS diagnosis, need for additional treatment, work restrictions
and current capabilities.

7. 4

Specifically, Dr. C states there is no objective evidence when the medical records in fact
reflect objective evidence of CRPS documented by Dr. M in addition to the subjective
complaints. Of note, Dr. M writes under Physical Examination on the date of service for
6/18/25: “3/5 grip strength in right upper extremity. The Budapest criteria, in the sensory category,
there is allodynia in the right hand compared to the left. The vasomotor category that has skin
color changes, a purple reddish color in the right compared to the left. There is no temperature
differences. In the pseudomotor category, patient has ongoing swelling in the right upper extremity
compared to the left. In the motor category, he has ongoing significant weakness in the right upper
extremity versus the left including significant impairment in grip strength. Patient is right handed.
He has ongoing tremors. I do not see any atrophic changes. No nail growth changes present.” (Pet.
Exh. #3) Dr. C ’s opinions are therefore cannot be relied on by the Arbitrator and are not
persuasive.

Dr. B IME was also reasonable and credible in his opinions and provides causation for the
orthopedic wrist and arm injuries petitioner suffered which required surgical repair. For the reasons
above however, the Arbitrator relies on the persuasive and credible testimony of petitioner and the
more credible and reliable medical records and opinions of Dr. M in awarding Petitioner
the WC benefits he seeks.

Issue F, whether Petitioner’s current condition of ill-being is causally related to the injury, the
Arbitrator finds as follows:

To obtain compensation under the Act, a claimant must prove that some act or phase of his
employment was a causative factor in his ensuing injuries. It is not necessary to prove that the
employment was the sole causative factor or even that it was the principal causative factor, but
only that it was a causative factor. Tolbert v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n, 2014 IL App (4th)
130523WC, ¶ 1, 11 N.E.3d 453. It is axiomatic that when the injury is shown to have arisen out
of and in the course of employment, every natural consequence that flows from the injury likewise
arises out of the employment. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n., 228 Ill. App. 3d 288 (3d
Dist. 1992).

A work-related injury need not be the sole or principal causative factor, as long as it
was a causative factor in the resulting condition of ill-being. Even if the claimant had a
preexisting degenerative condition which made him more vulnerable to injury, recovery for an
accidental injury will not be denied as long as he can show that his employment was also a
causative factor. Thus, a claimant may establish a causal connection in such cases if he can show
that a work-related injury played a role in aggravating his preexisting condition. Sisbro, Inc. v.
Industrial Comm'n, 207 Ill. 2d 193, 205, 797 N.E.2d 665, 278 Ill. Dec. 70 (2003). “A chain of
events which demonstrates a previous condition of good health, an accident, and a subsequent
injury resulting in disability may be sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove a causal nexus
between the accident and the employee’s injury.” International Harvester v. Industrial Com., 93
Ill. 2d 59, 63 442 N.E.2d 908 (1982).

The Arbitrator notes that Dr. B IME agrees with causation for the orthopedic injuries to the
wrist and biceps/arm which required two surgeries. In dispute at trial was the additional CRPS
diagnosis and recommendation by the treating physician for the spinal cord stimulator.

8. 5

Overall, the Arbitrator finds that Petitioner’s current condition of ill-being, for his right arm and
right wrist is causally related to his May 1, 2023 work injury. This includes the diagnosis of
CRPS, as further explained below.

Petitioner was moving a heavy cardboard crate full of costumes into a storage container when he
hyperextended his arm and felt immediate pain in his right wrist and right arm (TR. at 11). The
Arbitrator notes that accident was stipulated to and is not in dispute. Petitioner reported his
injuries to Respondent on May 1, 2023 (TR. at 14). Petitioner first sought treatment with his
primary care physician on May 3, 2023, and consistently treated since his workplace accident
with: (1) his orthopedic physician, Dr. S , and (2) his pain management physician, Dr.
M. Petitioner has no known prior accidents or prior medical treatment to his right arm
or wrist prior to his May, 1, 2023, accident. Petitioner testified credibly and consistently on this
issue. Petitioner also testified credibly about the pain symptoms he continues to have daily.
Petitioner’s lack of prior injury and then subsequent consistent treatment following his injury
further demonstrates a causal connection between Petitioner’s May 1, 2023 work injury and his
current condition in his right upper extremity and wrist/hand.

Petitioner’s orthopedic treatment to date for his work injury has include: (1) right wrist surgery
and (2) right elbow bicep tendon repair surgery. Petitioner had physical therapy for his right wrist
and right elbow following the surgeries. (Pet. Ex. #2 at 440, 457). Petitioner continues to have
significant pain in his right arm and right wrist, which is documented in his medical records by
Dr. S (Pet. Ex. #2). Petitioner also testified credibly about his continuing pain symptoms.
Dr. S referred Petitioner to see a pain management specialist for his ongoing pain
symptoms (Pet. Ex. #2, #3).

Petitioner is currently treating for his pain with Dr. M , a pain specialist, at
Network. Dr. M has diagnosed Petitioner with Complex Regional Pain
Syndrome (CRPS) (Pet. Ex. #3). In addition on 1/17/25, Dr. M opined under PLAN:
“The patient’s mode of injury was pushing crates with the right side of the body and the right
hand being caught, injuring his right hand and biceps. He underwent repair of the right biceps in
October 2023 and underwent right wrist reconstruction on 1/29/24. To a reasonable degree of
medical and surgical certainty, it is more likely than not that the patient’s current condition is
causally related to the injury in question. I believe that the treatment such as the repair of the
right biceps and the right wrist reconstruction done on the patient was medically necessary and
appropriate, especially since the patient has not has any of these symptoms prior to injury. The
patient continues to have significant pain, especially in the right upper extremity and further
having symptoms consistent with CRPS.” (Pet. Exh. #3, p. 98) As of the June 18, 2025 visit, Dr.
M , recommends proceeding with the spinal cord stimulator trial. (Id.)

During the physical examination of Petitioner, Dr. M reports that Petitioner meets the
Budapest criteria for CRPS. (Pet. Ex. #3 at 88). This includes chronic pain from light stimuli
such as soft touching of his wrist, skin discoloration on his right arm compared to his left arm,
ongoing swelling in his right arm, tremors, and significant motor weakness in his right upper
extremity compared to his left (Pet. Ex. #3 at 88).

9. 6

The Arbitrator finds it significant that Dr. M writes under Physical Examination on the
date of service for 6/18/25: “3/5 grip strength in right upper extremity…allodynia in the right
hand compared to the left… skin color changes, a purple reddish color in the right compared to
the left…patient has ongoing swelling in the right upper extremity compared to the left…he has
ongoing significant weakness in the right upper extremity versus the left including significant
impairment in grip strength…He has ongoing tremors.” (Pet. Exh. #3) Clearly, the treating
doctor, who was more frequently seeing Petitioner, observed the changes in petitioner’s
hand/arm that Dr. C opined were missing.

Dr. M in his examination, documents objective evidence that he saw with Petitioner’s
hand and arm, leading to the CRPS diagnosis. The doctor further opined on July 3, 2024, that
petitioner meets the Budapest criteria for CRPS and states there are signs and symptoms
consistent with CRPS. Petitioner underwent stellate ganglion blocks with Dr. M which
provided brief relief and eventually did a ketamine infusion after which petitioner reported
feeling no pain.

The Arbitrator notes that Petitioner also testified about the discoloration in his right arm which
has worsened over time (Pet. Ex. #7) (TR. at 39-49). Petitioner also testified that the redness in
his right arm appears in a splotchy pattern which is accompanied by abnormal “splotchy” and
“thicker” hair growth (TR. at 43) See colored photos of the right hand/arm taken from May 3,
2023 through June 12, 2025 (Pet. Ex. #7h-7n).

In his initial IME Report Dr. C specifically indicates there is no overt evidence of
symptom magnification and/or malingering by Petitioner (Res. Ex #1). Dr. C disputes
Petitioner having CRPS because of the lack of temperature variations, lack of color
abnormalities, no tremors, and no abnormal hair growth (Res. Ex. #1). Dr. C believes that
based on Petitioner’s pain symptomology, he is likely to have entrapment neuropathies and
initially recommended an EMG to address further treatment (Res. Ex. #1). Petitioner underwent
the EMG test on October 11, 2024, which resulted in no abnormal findings (Pet. Ex. #3 at 85).

Dr. C subsequently issued an IME Addendum on April 2, 2025 without further
examination of petitioner (Res. Ex. #3). Dr. Cstates in his report that the normal EMG
findings “muddies the waters” as the only reasonable explanation now is that Petitioner has
magnification of symptoms and possibly even malingering (Res. Ex. #3). This contradicts his
own IME Report and physical examination where he indicates that Petitioner had no evidence of
symptom magnification and/or malingering (Res. Ex. #1). Dr. C opines this despite neither
IME Dr. B or any of the treating physicians ever making a finding of symptom
magnification or malingering. After further review of Petitioner’s trial testimony, Petitioner’s
exhibit #7, and Dr. M ’s medical reports, Dr. C ’s determination in his IME reports
are not relied on. Petitioner has significant pain in his right arm, discoloration in his right arm,
ongoing swelling in his right arm, tremors in his right arm, and significant motor weakness in his
right upper arm that has been consistently documented since his work injury (Pet. Ex. #7, #3).
This is documented by and opined by Dr. M and the Arbitrator relies on the same.

10. 7

For the aforementioned reasons, the Arbitrator finds Petitioner’s current condition of ill-being in
his right arm and right wrist is causally related to his May 1, 2023 work injury, specifically
including the diagnosis of CRPS.

Issue J, whether the medical services that were provided to Petitioner were reasonable and
necessary and whether Respondent has paid all appropriate charges for all reasonable and
necessary medical services, the Arbitrator finds as follows:

Under Section 8(a) of the Act (820 ILCS 305/8(a) (West 2006)), a claimant is entitled to recover
reasonable medical expenses, the incurrence of which are causally related to an accident arising
out of and in the scope of his employment and which are necessary to diagnose, relieve, or cure
the effects of the claimant’s injury. Absolute Cleaning/SVMBL v. Ill. Workers’ Compensation
Comm’n, 409 Ill. App. 3d 463, 470 (4th Dist. 2011)(citing: University of Illinois v. Industrial
Comm’n, 232 Ill. App. 3d 154, 164 (1st Dist. 1992). Medical care under Section 8(a) is continuous
as long as such care is required to relieve the effects of the injury. Freeman United Coal Mining
Co. v. Industrial Commission, 81 Ill.2d 335 (1980). Whether a medical expense is either
reasonable or necessary is a question of fact to be resolved by the Commission, and its
determination will not be overturned on review unless it is against the manifest weight of the
evidence. F&B Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 325 Ill. App. 3d 527, 532 (1st Dist.
2001).

Overall, the Arbitrator finds Petitioner’s treatment to date to be reasonable and necessary and
finds that Respondent has not paid for all of said treatment. Petitioner’s treatment has consisted
of doctor’s appointments, diagnostic testing, therapy, two surgeries, and pain treatment including
injections. As such, the Arbitrator orders Respondent to pay Petitioner for the following
outstanding medical services, pursuant to the medical fee schedule and Sections 8(a) and 8.2 of
the Act as shown in Petitioner’s Exhibit 1, which are supported by the record exhibits contained
in Petitioner’s exhibit submissions 2-6. The total fee scheduled amount for the outstanding
medical bills is $28,182.41. Specifically, Respondent shall pay reasonable and necessary
medical services, pursuant to the medical fee schedule amounts, of $9,599.50 to
Orthopedic Network, $3,548.28 to Anesthesia Consultants, $3,090.00 to
Orthopaedics , $4,554.21 to Pharmacy, and $7,390.42 to
Physical Therapy as provided in Sections 8(a) and 8.2 of the Act.

Issue K, whether the Petitioner is entitled to prospective medical care, the Arbitrator finds as
follows:
The Arbitrator adopts the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and incorporates them by
reference as though fully set forth herein. The Arbitrator finds that Petitioner has not reached
maximum medical improvement. Petitioner continues to require medical care and treatment, per
the recommendations of his treating physicians.

Petitioner seeks prospective care in the form of spinal cord stimulator as recommended by Dr.
M . He has been diagnosed as having CRPS and the Arbitrator has been persuaded that
petitioner requires additional pain relief and treatment. Respondent maintains that Petitioner
failed to establish causation for the CRPS diagnosis per the opinions of Dr. C . The
Arbitrator has previously found in Petitioner’s favor on the issue of causation.

11. 8

The Arbitrator notes that Respondent’s orthopedic examiner, Dr. B, agreed with the
causation for the TFCC tear and biceps tear plus both surgeries as well but deferred to pain
specialists for the CRPS diagnosis. The Arbitrator finds that Respondent’s CRPS examiner, Dr.
C , did not provide persuasive or reliable opinions.

Petitioner is awarded the prospective medical care he seeks, as recommended by his treating
physicians. Petitioner’s treating physician, Dr. M , has recommended a spinal
cord stimulator to treat his CRPS condition stemming from his May 1, 2023, workplace injury.
Dr. M ’s opinion on Petitioner’s need for the spinal cord stimulator implementation
considers all necessary factors and is reasonable to the Arbitrator. Further, Dr. M ’s
opinion is supported by Petitioner’s treating orthopedic physician who referred Petitioner for
pain management to treat possible CRPS.

Lastly, Dr. M has consistently treated and physically examined Petitioner and appears to
be in the best position to make treatment recommendations for him. Dr. M further
opined that under a reasonable degree of medical and surgical certainty, it is more likely than not
that the patient’s current condition is causally related to the injury in question. He believes that
the treatment such as the repair of the right biceps and the right wrist reconstruction done on the
patient was medically necessary and appropriate, “especially since the patient has not has any of
these symptoms prior to injury and that his patient continues to have significant pain, especially
in the right upper extremity and further having symptoms consistent with CRPS.” (Pet. Exh. #3,
p. 98) As of the June 18, 2025 visit, Dr. M still recommends proceeding with the spinal
cord stimulator trial. (Id.)

The IME physician, Dr. C , disputes Petitioner’s current condition of ill-being as
work related, but indicates in his initial IME report that Petitioner might have entrapment
neuropathies and recommends an EMG. Further, Dr. C documents no evidence of
symptom magnification or malingering during his exam. In Dr. C ’s IME Addendum, he
does not have a reasonable explanation for his findings in his previous report other than
contradicting his previous report by finding that Petitioner possibly now has symptom
magnification or malingering. Following a negative or normal EMG. This contradicting opinion
is not relied on by the Arbitrator. Considering the testimony and the record as a whole, the
Arbitrator again finds the opinions of Dr. M significantly more persuasive than the
opinion of Dr. C . The Arbitrator has already found causal connection for petitioner’s
current condition of ill being as it relates to the May 1, 2023 accident and further awards the
prospective medical treatment.

Accordingly, the Arbitrator awards Petitioner the spinal cord stimulator surgery as
recommended by Dr. M and all associated post operative care required for Petitioner to
reach MMI status under Section 8(a) of the Act.

12. 9
Issue L, whether Petitioner is entitled to temporary total disability benefits, the Arbitrator finds
as follows:
The Arbitrator adopts the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and incorporates them by
reference as though fully set forth herein. A claimant is temporarily totally disabled from the
time an injury incapacitates him from work until such time as he is as far recovered or restored as
the permanent character of his injury will permit. Westin Hotel v. Indus. Comm’n, 372 Ill.App.3d
527, 542 (1st Dist. 2007).
Respondent terminated benefits following the IME Addendum by Dr. C that opined that
Petitioner did not have CRPS. Having relied on Dr. S and Dr. M , by finding a
causal connection for petitioner’s current condition of ill being and the date of accident, the
Arbitrator further awards Petitioner the Temporary Total Disability benefits he seeks.
The Petitioner has remained off work from May 1, 2023 to July 30, 2025 (trial), a period of 117
2/7 weeks and TTD is awarded for those dates. He is currently off work awaiting a spinal cord
stimulator authorization, which has also been awarded. Petitioner’s need to be off work since the
May 1, 2023 work accident is documented in his medical records and confirmed via his
testimony (TR. at 15) (Pet. Ex. #2, #3). Petitioner’s treating physicians, Dr. S and Dr.
M both have kept Petitioner off of work during this time frame.
Respondent shall pay Petitioner temporary total disability benefits of $1,848.20/week for 117
2/7 weeks commencing 05/02/2023 through 07/30/2025, as provided in Section 8(b) of the Act.
Respondent shall also be given a credit of $192,212.80 against this award, for the temporary
total disability benefits that have already been paid.
For the reasons stated above, Petitioner is entitled to an award of benefits under The Illinois
Workers’ Compensation Act consistent with the findings herein.