Kelvin Jarman v. St. Louis Bread Co./Panera Bread

I concur that the award of the administrative law judge (ALJ) should be affirmed. The ALJ authored a lengthy and well-reasoned award pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence presented.

In addition to the numerous questions raised by the ALJ as to the content of the task analysis report, I would raise two points.

First, the study was done some months after employee's claimed exposure and, therefore, the relevance is in question.

Second, the study is not comprehensive.

Although the study purports to test and measure certain aspects of the job employee performed, the underlying scientific basis justifying reliance on conclusions is missing. In that respect, the methodology and orthodoxy of the study is not established. Perhaps, many of the questions could have been laid to rest by the administrator of the test, should that person have testified.

The attempt to measure the job, measure the employee, compare the two and come to a medical or legal conclusion is laudable. Certainly such a study would clear up many questions as to causation.

But, I must find that the study, as presented, has weaknesses. Not least among them is the limited scope of the study. The study addresses only a portion of the workday. As pointed out by the ALJ, a significant portion of the day remains unmeasured.

I would find a study, such as this, to be a helpful tool in allowing us to determine the impact of repetitive use of an employee's hands, against resistance, over time, if those factors were more clearly set out, identified and explained over the entire working day.

Alice A. Bartlett, Member

Employee: Kelvin Jarman

Departments: N/A

Employer: Panera Bread Company

Additional Party: Second Injury Fund (open)

Insurer: Sentry Insurance Co.

Injury No.: 03-075895

Before the

DIVISION OF WORKERS‘

COMPENSATION

Department of Labor and Industrial

Relations of Missouri

Jefferson City, Missouri

Said payments to begin immediately and to be payable and be subject to modification and review as provided by law.

The compensation awarded to the Claimant shall not be subject to a lien in the amount of the payments hereunder as requested by the following attorney who provided the necessary legal services rendered to the Claimant: Mark S. Elhoffer

Employee: Kelvin Jarman

Injury No.: 03-075895

Dependents: N/A

Employer: Panera Bread Company

Additional Party: Second Injury Fund (open)

Insurer: Sentry Insurance Co.

Hearing Date: October 18, 2004

Before the<br>DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION<br>Department of Labor and Industrial<br>Relations of Missouri<br>Jefferson City, Missouri

Checked by:WLN

The parties stipulate that the claimant was an employee of the employer who was operating under the laws of Missouri Workers' Compensation statutes on July 1, 2003; the rate of compensation for temporary total disability was $\ 413.32 and permanent partial disability was $\ 347.05; and that the employer has not paid any TTD or medical expenses for this injury.

1. Was the Claimant exposed to an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment; and
2. Was the Claimants work the medical cause of Claimant's disability; and
3. Is the employer liable for future medical treatment?

Claimant offered the following exhibit, which was admitted into evidence without objection other than those contained in the deposition and they were ruled upon in accordance with this award:

Exhibit A, Deposition of Dr. Bruce Schafly

Employer offered the following exhibits which were admitted into evidence without objection other than those contained in the deposition and they were ruled upon in accordance with this award:

Exhibit \#1, Deposition of Dr. Ollinger

Exhibit \#2, Task Analysis Report of 11/03

Exhibit \#3, Medical Records of Dr. E. Rose

Exhibit \#4, Medical Records of Dr. Della-Pietra

Based upon the competent and substantial evidence I find:

1. Claimant, at the time of the hearing, was 47 years old, 5'11" and weighed 270 pounds. Claimant worked for Employer a truck delivery driver for 7 years. When the Claimant began work with employer, he drove a 24 ft box truck and delivered raw dough products to the employer's stores in the St. Louis, Springfield, Illinois and Cape Girardeau areas. At that time he drove a six-speed manual transmission truck.
2. Four years ago the Claimant began driving on a local route and his job changed. His new job required only that he pick up four to five empty cabinets (from in the St. Louis area) and return them to the main plant where he unloaded the cabinets and then removed the empty dough trays. The empty cabinets with the empty trays weighed from 60 to 70 pounds and were approximately five feet tall. The are on small wheels that sometimes stick nor swivel properly. The truck he drove to pick up the empty cabinets was a ten-speed manual transmission.
3. After Claimant unloaded a truck, on occasion he would help put baking materials away. This included bags of flour and cheese. The bags might weigh as much as one hundred pounds.
4. Each day the Claimant had to arrange six delivery trucks at the loading dock and load them with cabinets containing trays of dough. These cabinets weighed from two to three hundred pounds. The Claimant had to push the loaded cabinets through some plastic curtains, up a warehouse ramp (one and a half feet high) onto the dock and then load the trucks parked at various distances up to thirty and forty feet away. The ramps into the trucks were an inch or two high. The floor of the warehouse on occasion could be slippery and the Claimant had to grasp the cabinets firmly to keep them from tipping. If a cabinet would fall the Claimant had to catch it and if the did not catch it, he had to fill it again.
5. The Claimant began having problems with his wrists three years ago. He had pain, stiffness and numbness. He went to his family doctor who referred him to a rheumatoid arthritis specialist, Dr. Rose who had Claimant undergo a nerve conduction study that revealed carpal tunnel syndrome. The Claimant ultimately saw Dr. Schlafly and Dr. Ollinger and they both recommended surgery, but disagreed as to the cause.
6. A task analysis was conducted by the Ergonomics Department at Barnes Jewish Hospital and was done through analysis of data collected through digital photography, observations, and interviews with Claimant's supervisor, Marty Rodrireque and Claimant himself. An ergonomics expert observed the Claimant do his job, but that observer did not ride with the Claimant as he drove the delivery truck nor was he present for the loading of the trucks. Instead he drove his own car and took measurements of Claimant unloading truck and some pictures. The task analysis found that the claimant's primary job tasks were (1) driving a route to pick up empty cabinets from 5 Panera cafes; (2) unloading trucks of the empty cabinets and stacking trays on pallets; and (3) loading trucks with raw dough products. The amount of time and effort spent on these tasks were variable. Claimant's secondary tasks included assisting in getting and storing ingredients that he would do once or twice a week and occasionally he would run an order, pickup at the warehouse, gather pallets or use a forklift. (Analysis 3).
7. The task analysis used two differed methods to assess the ergonomic risks for carpal tunnel, the strain index and the threshold value limit. (Analysis 3). The Strain Index is a means to assess jobs for risk of work-related

musculoskeletal disorders. Strain index stated that scores greater than 5 are associated with jobs causing distal upper extremity disorders. Strain index scores less th