Was the prescription for the Provigil reasonable?
In this case, the trial judge determined that Provigil was necessary to address Zitterkopf’s reaction to the pain medication. The judge relied upon expert medical testimony. Therefore, the Court said that the first question posed is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the trial judge’s finding. Viewed in the light most favorable to the successful party, the Court found that the evidence shows that Provigil is medically necessary for at least two purposes: (1) to treat the side effects of pain medication necessitated by the compensable injury and (2) to treat the unrelated sleep apnea. Here, the trial judge primarily relied upon the evidence of Zitterkopf’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Elena Zerpa, who prescribed the Provigil. Zerpa responded to two questionnaires of Zitterkopf’s counsel and later testified by deposition. While Aulick and United focused upon Zerpa’s admission in the deposition that she could not isolate each factor in analyzing medical necessity, the trial judge
