“The Gang of Seven” blog series, I am reviewing seven of the most relied-upon insurance defense medical examiners: Dr. David Bauer, Dr. Lynne Bell, Dr. Dennis Chong, Dr. Keith Holley, Dr. Stephen Marble, Dr. Patrick Radecki, and Dr. Marilyn Yodlowski. Today, we’re looking at Patrick Radecki MD.
If your insurance company sends you to any of these doctors, beware!
Dr. Radecki graduated medical school in 1973. He has been practicing in Portland Oregon since 1983 and has been performing “independent” medical examinations in Alaska since 2001. His specialty is Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
On Healthgrades, his rating is 1.3 stars: https://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-patrick-radecki-xdlxm. One reviewer wrote:
I saw this Dr for an IME. Unfortunately the other reviewers are spot on. This physician beside manner made me quite uncomfortable. He’s awkward and at times downright rude. Throughout my exam he told me about his many years of working for insurance companies to deny claims. He’s an insurance company pawn. Despite having positive test results for my condition and no other way to justify how I could have developed these issues he filled a report claiming my issues were not work related.
There are seventy-five reported decision by the Alaska Workers Compensation Board in which Dr. Radecki is named beginning in 2002. The following is a selection.
Nichols v Alaska National Insurance Co., AWCB Dec. No 02-0209 (October 8, 2002)
In 1995, the worker was sitting in a pickup at work when it was rammed by a forklift, shoved over a berm, rolled several times and landed on its top. When the pickup stopped rolling, he unfastened his seat belt and fell to the roof of the cab.
He went to ER and had x-rays that showed no injury. Although he had aches and pains, particularly in his neck, he went back to work. His condition continued to get worse although he was taking pain medication until 1998 so he retired from his union and began drawing social security benefits.
In 2000, Dr. Kralick told him that he needed surgery and that the 1995 accident was the cause. He underwent a multilevel fusion in 2001.
The Employer sent him to Dr. Radecki who opined that the motor vehicle accident was not the cause of his condition and that he was simply suffering from the natural progression of spondylosis, a preexisting injury. The SIME doctor agreed with Dr. Radecki on causation. He also stated that the Employee could return to work as an ironworker. Dr. Kralik and the SIME doctor both stated he could not return to work.
The Board believed the Employee and his physician over Dr. Radecki and awarded him medical benefits and permanent total disability. The Employee won.
Mary Samuel v Alaska National Insurance Co. AWCB Dec. No 03-103 (May 9, 2003)
The Employee injured her low back in 2000 when she fell from her chair while working as a car rental sales agent. An MRI showed a herniated disc. Surgery was recommended. She declined surgery and pursued chiropractic treatment instead.
The Employer sent her to Dr. Radecki. He opined that the work-related event was a temporary exacerbation of a pre-existing condition, she needed no further treatment and was capable of returning to her regular duties full-time. Another “independent” medical evaluation with Richard Peterson, DC, agreed.
The SIME doctor found that she had herniated her disc in the fall at work and recommended back surgery.
By the time the case got to hearing in 2003, the Employee wanted the surgery.
The Board found the testimony of the Employee and her physicians were more persuasive. She won her case.
James Wood v Ace Fire Underwriters, AWCB Dec. No 05-0005 (Jan. 13, 2005)
On 2002, the Employee was injured while driving a truck for his employer. The truck slipped and rolled over. He was taken to the hospital with right shoulder and back pain.
The Employer sent him to Dr. Radecki. He opined that the Employee had recovered from his injuries, did not need any more treatment, could go back to work as a truck driver and alluded to “nonphysiologic presentation” (that means he was faking his injury). His treating physicians stated that the injury was related to the work accident.
The Employee continued to suffer pain. In 2003, an MRI revealed a rotator cuff tear, degenerative changes, and tendinitis in the biceps tendon. Surgery was recommended.
The Board believed the Employee and his treating physicians over Dr. Radecki. The Employee won benefits for his shoulder injury.
Ramondino v Hartford Insurance Co, AWCB Dec. No 12-0214 (December 20, 2012)
Prior to her work injury, the Employee had been on low dosage narcotics for low back pain. He had never had any hip problems before she was injured at work. In early March 2011, he began experiencing right hip pain working as an assistant store manager at Sports Authority. By June 2011, his physician took him off work. He was diagnosed with right hip osteoarthrosis with acute exacerbation.
The Employer sent him to Dr. Radecki. He opined that there was no injury, that his work temporarily aggravated a preexisting condition, he could return to work, and he did not need any more medical treatment. His physicians offered him a variety of treatment including injections and surgery.
The SIME doctor said that work had caused the symptoms and suggested the Employee may need a total hip replacement.
The Board relied upon the Employee’s testimony combined with his treating physicians’ recommendations and the SIME report over Dr. Radecki’s opinions. The other doctors reports were given more weight because they made sense. Regarding Dr. Radecki’s opinions, the Board stated:
Lastly, weighing the evidence, Dr. Radecki's contrary opinion is not credible and is afforded very little weight. AS 23.30.122. According to his report, Dr. Radecki reviewed only three medical records before formulating his initial opinions. Dr. Radecki did not address all the questions his client asked him, but rather, provided answers not relevant to the medical-legal inquiry. Dr. Radecki focused on the substantial cause of the right hip “condition,” rather than on the substantial cause of Employee's disability and need for medical care regarding his right hip. As stated above, Dr. Radecki has an improper legal understanding of “injury” under Alaska law.
He believes there must be a traumatic event. Nothing in the 2005 amendments to the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act suggests the legislature intended to eliminate aggravations of preexisting conditions as “injuries.” DeYonge. Even Employer's representative appears to acknowledge this, when he or she inquired of Dr. Radecki initially and for clarification of his initial opinion, and queried about “cumulative” injury, as discussed below. Hawkins; Thurston. Consequently, Dr. Radecki's reports are given extremely little weight. They are inadequate to overcome the significant weight given to the opinions of Drs. Ross, Davidhizar and particularly SIME Silverman on the causation and compensability issues.
The Employee won benefits for his hip injury including medical benefits and TTD.
In sum, despite the fact that Dr. Radecki’s opinion has often been discounted by the Alaska Workers Compensation Board, the insurance companies keep hiring him to say the same thing he always says: that the Employee wasn’t injured, that he suffers from a preexisting condition, that he doesn’t need medical treatment, and he can go back to work.
The reason the insurance companies keep hiring him is because the majority of Employees they send to him don’t fight their cases so even if the insurance companies lose from time to time, they are saving a fortune on those other cases that were denied.
If you don’t want to walk away from your case, your best bet for winning is to hire an experienced workers compensation attorney.
***
Keenan Powell has practiced Workers Compensation law in the State of Alaska for over 35 years and has dedicated her practice to Workers Compensation representing injured Alaskans handling hundreds of cases. www.keenanpowell.com.
All consultations are free. To make an appointment, email: keenan@keenanpowell.com or call: 907 258 7663.