The State Organization Index provides an alphabetical listing of government organizations, including commissions, departments, and bureaus.
Top-requested sites to log in to services provided by the state
FABRICANT, J. The employee appeals from a decision denying and dismissing his claims for §§ 34 or 35 incapacity benefits, as well as §§ 13 and 30 medical benefits, specifically bilateral knee replacements.1 The employee contends the judge mischaracterized the impartial examiner’s opinion supporting his claim regarding causal relationship and the need for medical treatment. While we agree the judge mischaracterized portions of the impartial examiner’s opinion, for reasons discussed below, we affirm the decision.
1 During oral argument before the reviewing board, the parties narrowed the issues in dispute to just the employee’s claim for §§ 13 and 30 benefits. Accordingly, we do not address the substance of the original claim for §§ 34 and 35 benefits. (Oral Argument Tr. 11-12, 20.) We hasten to add the judge did not, as the employee suggests, deny his right to treat generally for his injuries. Respecting the employee’s medical treatment rights, at hearing the insurer only denied "entitlement to medical benefits as to the bilateral knee replacement. . . ." (Dec. 3.) The judge denied "the Employee’s claim for Section 13 and 30 benefits specifically to his need for treatment for bilateral total knee replacement." (Dec. 16.)