[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-281276-105":53,"doc-detail-281276-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","larry-hopson-v-coastal-international-security-crb-no-16-130-decision-and-order-january-25-2017","Larry Hopson v. Coastal International Security - CRB No. 16-130 - Decision and Order (January 25, 2017)","","Decision and Order of the District of Columbia Compensation Review Board concerning Larry Hopson’s workers’ compensation appeal against Coastal International Security, including a third-party administrator and employer-related medical treatment disputes. The record summarizes the claimant’s job duties, pre-existing cervical conditions, and the April 8, 2013 work-related fall, followed by emergency and follow-up treatment. The Board addresses whether the September 2, 2016 Compensation Order is supported by substantial evidence and complies with governing law, applying the Act’s limited scope of review.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":36,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/forms/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/larry-hopson-v-coastal-international-security-crb-no-16-130-decision-and-order-january-25-2017/281276/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/larry-hopson-v-coastal-international-security-crb-no-16-130-decision-and-order-january-25-2017/281276.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Liam","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-23","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",10,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"What question is the Compensation Review Board asked to resolve on appeal?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"Whether the September 2, 2016 Compensation Order is supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the law.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"What is the scope of review applied by the CRB?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"The CRB determines whether factual findings are based on substantial evidence and whether legal conclusions follow rationally from those facts and comply with applicable law.",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What dispute arose regarding the claimant’s treatment for his cervical spine condition?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"A dispute arose as to whether current treatment was causally related to the work injury that occurred on April 8, 2013.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},281276,1790362259,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":35,"category_name":36,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":136,"language":137,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":138,"faqs":139,"seo_title":140,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":141,"read_time":73},8796095461564,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA  \n# Department of Employment Services\n\nODIE A.DONALDIACTING DIRECTOR  \nMURIEL BoWSER  \nMAYOR  \n# COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD\n\nCRB No.16-130  \nLARRY HOPSON,Claimant-Petitioner,  \n7317 JAN 25  105h  \nCOMPENSATION REVIEW  \nDEPT.0F EMPLOYMENT  \nV.  \nSERVICES  \nB0ARD  \nCOASTAL INTERNATIONAL SECURITY andGALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES,Employer/Third Party Administrator.  \nAppeal from a September 2,2016 Compensation Orderby Administrative Law Judge Joan E.KnightAHD No.16-177,OWC No.703868  \n(Decided January 25,2017)  \nEric S.Poplonski for ClaimantJoel E.Ogden for Employer  \nBefore LINDA F.JORY,HEATHER C.LESLIE,and GENNET PURCELL Administrative AppealsJudges.  \nLINDA F.JORY for the Compensation Review Board.  \n## DECISION AND ORDER\n\nFACTS OF RECORD AND PROCEDURALHISTORY  \nLarry Hopson(“Claimant”)worked as an armed security/office supervisor for CoastalInternational Security(“Employer”).Claimant was assigned to work at the Department ofHomeland Security building with Federal Protective Police.  \nClaimant has underlying hypertension/high blood pressure and pre-existing cervical degenerativedisc disease.In 2011,Claimant was evaluated for neck,shoulder and right arm pain.Radiological imaging showed multi-level cervical spinal stenosis and disc protrusions at C5-C6and C6-C7,cervical myelomalacia at C4-C5 and cervical radiculopathy.Claimant wasprescribed Lyrica (an anti-convulsant for nerve and muscle pain)and nerve block injections.Claimant performed his duties for Employer without any known limitations or medicalrestrictions.  \nOn April 8,2013,during a lobby walkthrough,Claimant collapsed and fell forward onto amarble floor.His right dominant hand/wrist hyperextended and his face and head struck thefloor.Claimant received emergency treatment at Queen Anne's Emergency Center to his rightarm,right hand and right cheek.He sought follow-up treatment with his primary care familyphysician,Dr.Eric Ciganek.  Dr.Ciganek diagnosed Claimant with a right wristhyperextension/sprain and post-concussion syndrome secondary to his fall.  Dr.Ciganekmanaged Claimant's work injuries over a period of six weeks.On May 15,2013 Dr.Ciganeknoted Claimant's right hand injury \"had nicely resolved”and referred Claimant to a handspecialist to address residual complaints of pain and tenderness.  \nClaimant was seen by orthopedic hand surgeon,Dr.Christopher Forthman on May 30,2013 andJune 23,2013.Dr.Forthman noted Claimant's right hand was at least 90%improved and thatClaimant could resume regular duties as tolerated.  Claimant returned to work as asecurity/police officer without restriction on June 24,2013.  \nOn October 28,2013,Claimant was evaluated by neurologist,Dr.Terry Detrick.Dr.Detrick'simpression was progressive disorder,alteration of consciousness,facial weakness,and righthemiparesis of an unclear etiology.Dr.Detrich suspected Claimant's symptoms may stem froma neck issue and cervical imaging was ordered.The cervical and thoracic MRI’s scan taken onOctober 30,2013 showed the presence of severe spinal canal stenosis at C2-C3,C6-C7,and C7-  \nT1,most prominent from C6-T1.Claimant was diagnosed with multi-level degenerative changesand cervical spondylosis,spinal cord changes,cervical myelopathy at C4-C5 and was referred toa neurosurgeon for immediate cervical fusion surgery which was performed on November 1,2013 by Dr.Enslin Aldrich,spinal neurosurgeon.Dr.Aldrich performed a second surgicalprocedure,an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at C5-C6.  \nA dispute arose as to whether current treatment for Claimant's cervical spine condition wascausally related to the work injury that occurred on April 8,2013.A formal hearing was heldbefore an administrative law judge(“ALJ”)in the Administrative Hearings Division(“AHD”)ofthe Department of Employment Services(“DOES”)on June 27,2016.A Compensation Order(\"CO”)issued on September 2,2016,which denied Claimant's claim for relief of temporary totaldisability and causally related medical expen","cbCaii9wfpT4nDQr","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaii9wfpT4nDQr","pdf",430680,6,"English","# DECISION AND ORDER\n## FACTS OF RECORD AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY\n## ISSUE ON APPEAL\n## ANALYSIS","[{\"question\":\"What question is the Compensation Review Board asked to resolve on appeal?\",\"answer\":\"Whether the September 2, 2016 Compensation Order is supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the law.\"},{\"question\":\"What is the scope of review applied by the CRB?\",\"answer\":\"The CRB determines whether factual findings are based on substantial evidence and whether legal conclusions follow rationally from those facts and comply with applicable law.\"},{\"question\":\"What dispute arose regarding the claimant’s treatment for his cervical spine condition?\",\"answer\":\"A dispute arose as to whether current treatment was causally related to the work injury that occurred on April 8, 2013.\"}]","Larry Hopson v. Coastal International Security - CRB No. 16-130 - Decision and Order (January 25, 2017) | PDF",1789565299]