W.C. No. 4-222-373Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
June 26, 1997
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of a final order of Administrative Law Judge Rumler (ALJ), which denied his claim for housekeeping and lawn care services. We affirm.
This case was tried on stipulated facts. The parties agree that the claimant sustained a compensable head and back injury in July 1994. Due to the continuing effects of this injury, the claimant becomes nauseated by any quick movement of his head and by bending. The claimant also suffers from recurring headaches with photophobia and vertigo.
Due to these conditions, the claimant’s treating physician has prescribed “essential household services five days a week . . . through 5-15-96 and decreasing to four days a week” thereafter. The physician states that “this would include laundry, mopping, doing bathrooms, vacuuming, beds, cleaning above shoulder level and he also needs help with lawn care.”
The ALJ denied the claim for housekeeping and lawn care services. The ALJ concluded that these services are not in the nature of “home health care,” and are not necessary to assist the claimant in performing such activities as getting in and out of bed, performing exercise, and maintaining hygiene.
On review, the claimant contends that the requested services are compensable because without the services his symptoms will be aggravated. In support of this contention the claimant relies o Atencio v. Quality Care, Inc., 791 P.2d 7 (Colo.App. 1990), an Suetrack USA v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 902 P.2d 854
(Colo.App. 1995). We find no error.
In order for a service or apparatus to be compensable under §8-42-101(1)(a), C.R.S. (1996 Cum. Supp.), it must be “medical” in nature. Our courts have held that a service is not “medical” unless it directly relieves the symptoms or effects of the injury, or is associated with the claimant’s physical needs. Kuziel v. Pet Fair, Inc., 931 P.2d 521 (Colo.App. 1996); Bouge v. SDI Corp., Inc., 931 P.2d 477 (Colo.App. 1996). In accordance with this view, our courts have held that housekeeping services are not medical in nature unless they are provided as part of medically prescribed home health care services, and incident to the provision of such services. Country Squire Kennels v. Tarshis, 899 P.2d 362 (Colo.App. 1995); Valdez v. Gas Stop, 857 P.2d 544
(Colo.App. 1993). Using much the same logic, the courts have also rejected the argument that lawn care services are compensable on the theory that they would protect the claimant from further injury. Hillen v. Tool King, 851 P.2d 289, (Colo.App. 1993).
The claimant’s arguments notwithstanding, the ALJ’s order must be upheld in this case. Here, there is no suggestion that the housekeeping and lawn care services directly treat the claimant’s physical condition. At best, the services were prescribed to preclude the claimant from experiencing exacerbations of his symptoms when he performs these activities. Neither is there any indication that the claimant needs home health care services for purposes of ministering to his personal hygiene needs.
Under these circumstances, the recommended services are not medical in nature. The ALJ correctly ruled that there is an insufficient connection between the claimant’s injury-related medical needs and the services for which he seeks compensation.
Atencio v. Quality Care, Inc. and Suetrack USA v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office are not authority to the contrary. In both of those cases, the claimant was receiving medically prescribed home health care services related to the industrial injury. Thus, the housekeeping services were incidental to the provision of reasonable and necessary medical treatment. See Country Squire Kennels v. Tarshis, supra.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated December 18, 1996, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
______________________________ David Cain
______________________________ Kathy E. Dean
NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacate theOrder is commenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14thAvenue, Denver, Colorado 80203, by filing a petition to reviewwith the court, with service of a copy of the petition upon theIndustrial Claim Appeals Office and all other parties, withintwenty (20) days after the date the Order was mailed, pursuant to§§ 8-43-301(10) and 307, C. R. S. (1996 Cum. Supp.).
Copies of this decision were mailed June 26, 1997 to the following parties:
Jack D. Jacobs, 6195 W. Jefferson Pl., Lakewood, CO 80226
Ed Bozarth Chevrolet, Geo, 2001 S. Havana St., Aurora, CO 80014
Hartford Insurance Group, Attn: Sonia Pathmadevan, P.O. Box 22815, Denver, CO 80222
James E. Freemyer, Esq., 1545 Ogden St., Denver, CO 80218-1405 (For the Claimant)
Bradley Unkeless, Esq., 10375 E. Harvard Ave., Ste. 403, Denver, CO 80231 (For the Respondents)
By: _______________________________