Rogers v. Wood Manufacturing

I cannot agree with the result reached by the majority opinion in this case because it dismisses the appeal but leaves the controversy pending without any guidance as to how it can be resolved.

The problem started when the administrative law judge entered an order dated October 14, 1991, in which his finding number “5” stated, “Claimant is entitled to an award of benefits for medical care provided and to be provided by Dr. Schoedinger for his back condition.” There was an appeal from the law judge’s order and the order (including finding “5”) was affirmed by the full Commission on March 6,…