W.C. No. 4-282-813Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
May 12, 1997
FINAL ORDER
The respondents seek review of a final order of Administrative Law Judge Friend (ALJ) which ordered them to purchase an ergonomic keyboard and chair with elbow rests as medical benefits. We reverse.
The claimant is a legal secretary who developed “overuse syndrome of the upper extremities.” The treating physician restricted the claimant’s typing activities, and stated that the purchase of a chair with elbow supports and an ergonomic keyboard would be “an excellent idea” so as to reduce “ulnar deviation of the wrists.”
By the time of the hearing, the keyboard had been purchased by the employer for the claimant’s use. The claimant testified that her condition improved after purchase of the keyboard because she can type longer with fewer symptoms.
Under these circumstances, the ALJ concluded that the respondents are required to pay for the keyboard and purchase the chair as medical benefits. Section 8-42-101(1)(a), C.R.S. (1996 Cum. Supp.). The ALJ found these items are medical benefits because the claimant’s symptoms increased without the keyboard and chair, and were reduced when she used the keyboard. Moreover, the ALJ noted that the office equipment is to be used “in performing the very same employment activities which caused the initial injury.” In support of this conclusion, the ALJ relied on our decision in Mahoney v. Steven U. Mullens, P.C., W.C. No. 4-240-952 (June 20, 1996).
On review, the respondents contend that the ALJ erred in awarding the chair and keyboard as medical benefits. The respondents argue that the evidence does not support the award because the items are not “medical in nature,” but simply make the claimant’s performance of her job easier. We agree.
In order for an apparatus to be “medical” in nature under §8-42-101(1)(a), it must be prescribed to treat the disease or injury, or it must provide “therapeutic relief” from the effects of the injury Cheyenne County Nursing Home v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 892 P.2d 443 (Colo.App. 1995). It is not sufficient that the apparatus shields the claimant from risks or symptoms which might be experienced if the claimant did not have the apparatus. See Hillen v. Tool King, 851 P.2d 289 (Colo.App. 1993) (lawn care not compensable because it was designed to relieve the claimant of the rigors of yard work, not to treat the symptoms of the injury).
In Mahoney v. Steven U. Mullens, P.C., supra, we held that the evidence supported an ALJ’s determination that ergonomic office equipment was compensable because it provided “therapeutic relief” to an office worker. In that case, the evidence revealed that the office equipment was prescribed by a treating physician, and the claimant testified that her symptoms worsened in the absence of the equipment.
However, our order in Mahoney was set aside by the Court of Appeals in Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, (Colo.App. No. 96CA1140, 96CA1246, April 24, 1997) (not selected for publication). Relying on such cases as Cheyenne County Nursing Home v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, supra, the court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the prescribed office equipment was “medical in nature.” To the contrary, the court determined that the office equipment was not prescribed to treat the claimant’s symptoms, but merely to “make claimant feel better or assist her in performing employment activities.”
In our view, the facts present in this case are essentially indistinguishable from those present in Mahoney. Although it is clear that the claimant’s symptoms may worsen without the office equipment, and that the treating physician believes the office equipment will prevent or mitigate recurrences of the symptoms, the office equipment was not prescribed as a form of direct treatment for the symptoms of the injury. Although the office equipment will make performance of the claimant’s job easier, it is not “therapeutic” in the sense contemplated by the Court of Appeals.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated October 2, 1996, is reversed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
______________________________ David Cain
______________________________ Kathy E. Dean
NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacate the Orderis commenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue,Denver, Colorado 80203, by filing a petition to review with the court,with service of a copy of the petition upon the Industrial Claim AppealsOffice and all other parties, within twenty (20) days after the date theOrder was mailed, pursuant to §§ 8-43-301(10) and 307, C. R. S. (1996Cum. Supp.).
Copies of this decision were mailed May 12, 1997 to the following parties:
Karen A. Freauff, 2000 W. 92nd Ave., #625, Denver, CO 80221
Turner and Meiklejohn, P.C., 1120 Lincoln St., Ste. 1001, Denver, CO 80203
Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority, Attn: Brandee DeFalco-Galvin, Esq. (Interagency Mail)
Scott A. Meiklejohn, Esq., 1120 Lincoln St., Ste. 1001, Denver, CO 80203 (For the Claimant)
By: ____________________________