Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

Mark Howard v. General Electric Company

Decision date: September 26, 20058 pages

Summary

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the administrative law judge's decision denying workers' compensation benefits to Mark Howard for a low back injury alleged to have occurred on September 4, 2003, finding that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. No compensation was awarded in this case.

Archive Notice

This archive contains published Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission workers' compensation decisions reproduced for research convenience. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Legal Help

Practical guidance for this decision

Third-Party Injury Check

This workers' comp decision may point to a separate injury claim.

  • A driver, contractor, property owner, or equipment company may share fault.
  • The injury involved a vehicle, unsafe premises, defective equipment, or a non-employer vendor.
  • A serious injury or death may need both benefits review and civil-claim analysis.

Caption

FINAL AWARD DENYING COMPENSATION

(Affirming Award and Decision of Administrative Law Judge)

Injury No.: 03-138394

Employee: Mark Howard

Employer: General Electric Company

Insurer: Electric Insurance Company

Additional Party: Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund (open)

Date of Accident: September 4, 2003

Place and County of Accident: St. Louis County, Missouri

The above-entitled workers' compensation case is submitted to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission for review as provided by section 287.480 RSMo. Having reviewed the evidence and considered the whole record, the Commission finds that the award of the administrative law judge is supported by competent and substantial evidence and was made in accordance with the Missouri Workers' Compensation Act. Pursuant to section 286.090 RSMo, the Commission affirms the award and decision of the administrative law judge dated March 10, 2005, and awards no compensation in the above-captioned case.

The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Karla Ogrodnik Boresi, issued March 10, 2005, is attached and incorporated by this reference.

Given at Jefferson City, State of Missouri, this $\qquad 26^{\text {th }} \qquad$ day of September 2005.

LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

William F. Ringer, Chairman

Alice A. Bartlett, Member

Attest:

John J. Hickey, Member

Secretary

FINAL AWARD

Employee: Mark Howard

Injury No.: 03-138394

Dependents: $\quad \mathrm{N} / \mathrm{A}$

Before the

Division of Workers'

Employer:General Electric CompanyCompensation
Additional Party:Second Injury FundDepartment of Labor and Industrial
Relations of Missouri
Insurer:Electric Insurance CompanyJefferson City, Missouri
Hearing Date:December 4, 2004Checked by: KOB:tr

FINDINGS OF FACT AND RULINGS OF LAW

  1. Are any benefits awarded herein? No.
  2. Was the injury or occupational disease compensable under Chapter 287? No.
  3. Was there an accident or incident of occupational disease under the Law? No.
  4. Date of accident or onset of occupational disease: Alleged to be September 4, 2003
  5. State location where accident occurred or occupational disease contracted: St. Louis County
  6. Was above employee in employ of above employer at time of alleged accident or occupational disease? Yes.
  7. Did employer receive proper notice? Not determined.
  8. Did accident or occupational disease arise out of and in the course of the employment? No.
  9. Was claim for compensation filed within time required by Law? Yes.
  10. Was employer insured by above insurer? Yes.
  11. Describe work employee was doing and how accident happened or occupational disease contracted: Claimant was working, despite his painful low back, when he twisted, experienced a pop in his low back, felt an odd sensation down his legs, and began to experience an increase in pain.
  12. Did accident or occupational disease cause death? No Date of death? N/A
  13. Parts of body injured by accident or occupational disease: N/a
  14. Compensation paid to-date for temporary disability: $\ 0
  15. Value necessary medical aid paid to date by employer/insurer? $\ 0
  16. Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer/insurer? $\ 0

Employee: Mark Howard Injury No.: 03-138394 17. Employee's average weekly wages: Not determined. 18. Weekly compensation rate: Not determined. 19. Method wages computation: N/a.

COMPENSATION PAYABLE

  1. Second Injury Fund liability: No.
  2. Future requirements awarded: None.

FINDINGS OF FACT and RULINGS OF LAW:

Employee:Mark HowardInjury No.: 03-138394
Dependents:N/ABefore the <br> Division of Workers' <br> Compensation <br> Department of Labor and Industrial
Employer:General Electric CompanyRelations of Missouri
Additional Party:Second Injury FundJefferson City, Missouri
Checked by: KOB:tr

PRELIMINARIES

A hearing was held in the matter of Mark Howard ("Claimant") to determine whether Claimant is entitled to workers' compensation benefits. Attorney Elizabeth Ituarte represented Claimant. Attorney Chris Pat represented General Electric Company ("Employer") and its Insurer, Electric Insurance Company. The Second Injury Fund is a party to the claim, but did not participate at hearing as Claimant sought a temporary award.

The parties agree that on or about September 4, 2003, an event involving Claimant occurred at the workplace. The parties agree that Claimant was an employee of Employer, venue is proper in the City of St. Louis, and Claimant filed a timely claim. However, the parties dispute Claimant's average weekly wage, and therefore do not agree on the applicable rates of compensation. Employer has not paid any benefits.

The issues to be determined are:

  1. Did Claimant sustain an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment that resulted in injury;
  2. Is Claimant's medical condition causally related to his alleged accidental injury;
  3. Did Claimant provide appropriate notice of his injury;
  4. What are the appropriate rates of compensation;
  5. Is Employer liable to reimburse Claimant for past medical expenses in an amount up to $\ 56,711.83;
  6. Is Employer responsible for providing continued medical care due to Claimant's alleged work related accidental injury;
  7. Is Claimant entitled to recover temporary total disability benefits beginning on the date of accident up to the current date;
  8. Shall Employer pay costs and fees pursuant to $\S 287.560$ for an unreasonable defense?

Claimant's Testimony

Claimant is a 29-year-old high school graduate who has trade training in masonry. His previous work history includes working in a mill, operating equipment for a lumber company, for a construction company, and as a farm laborer on a cattle ranch. Claimant worked for Employer from November 1996 through October 1999, and then from March 2001 through the date of his alleged accident on September 4, 2003. His initial job was as a packaging mechanic, which required him to lift, squat, and be on his feet most of the time. At some point during his second tenure with Employer, he transferred into the assembly mechanic department, which represented an increase in pay, but also required him to be exposed to higher stress and heat. Claimant worked for the lumber company in between his employments with Employer. He testified he left Employer in 1999 because he was looking for a less stressful, less labor-intensive job, and because he could sit down at the lumber company. This change also coincided with his first back surgery, which occurred in 1999 and is detailed later in the award.

On September 4, 2003, Claimant was working from approximately 3:30 to 12:00 midnight. On that shift, it was very hot and they were understaffed, so things were "chaotic" and Claimant was responsible for multiple machines. His only co-worker was Shannon Patterson, who was not in Claimant's field of sight at the time he hurt himself. Claimant testified that he was working behind a machine when he turned quickly to answer a bell, felt a pop in his back, and experienced a warm sensation down his legs. Claimant found his supervisor, Dave Hunt, who took him to the supervisor's office. Claimant never specifically told Dave Hunt that the symptoms in his leg were work related. While in the office, Claimant's legs went out from under him and he fell to the floor. Dave picked Claimant up. Claimant testified that he did not want to go to St. Mary's, which is why he refused the offer of Frank Neel to call an ambulance. Claimant called his wife and went to St. Luke's instead, where he has a family connection. Claimant testified that initially, only his right leg was symptomatic, but within three or four weeks, the left leg started to hurt and now both legs hurt.

After receiving treatment in the emergency room, the next day Claimant went to see his primary care physician, Dr. Kelly Bain. She obtained an MRI, which had not been previously scheduled. Although her records indicate it, Claimant did not recall a visit to Dr. Bain one week before the accident with complaints of back pain. Claimant then went to see Dr. Chabot who said nothing was wrong. He then went to Dr. Esther at St. Luke's who ran tests which were all negative for alternative sources to his back pain. Claimant then saw Dr. Benzaquen, a neurologist, whose nerve conduction testing revealed permanent nerve damage in his right leg. Claimant then saw Dr. Duntemann, a pain specialist, who provided nerve blocks, epidurals, and pain shots. Under Dr. Duntemann's direction, Claimant underwent his first CT myelogram and began a strong regimen of pain medicine including Methadone, Tizanidine, and pain cocktails. Claimant ultimately came under the treatment of Dr. Youkilis, a neurosurgeon, who performed fusion surgery.

Claimant spoke with Employer's nurse (Pam) regarding treatment. His only current source of income is long-term disability. Claimant was terminated from Employer one year after his accident. With respect to Claimant's personal file and issue of rate, Claimant explained that during the month of July 2003, there was a plant wide vacation scheduled the week of July $7^{\text {th }}. Other employees were off work the week of the 14^{\text {th }}$, although Claimant worked maintenance. The indication "low wp" is possibly a symbol for lack of work. Claimant thinks the plant was shut down during this time. Claimant's net pay, to the best of his recollection, was $\ 1,800 every two weeks.

On cross-examination, Employer's attorney highlighted many inconsistencies in Claimant's testimony. On direct, Claimant was fairly sure he had little or no pain in his back following his 1999 back surgery. He admitted that as someone who has undergone back surgery, he did have some symptoms and was never 100 percent, but he downplayed the severity of any symptoms and claimed they caused him no problems. He also downplayed the existence of any back pain prior to 1999. However, there were many inconsistencies between what Claimant testified to on direct, and what he had previously testified to in a deposition, which Claimant attempted to explain by saying he was under a lot of medication and that his mind was clouded. For example, he denied being severely hurt by cattle, although in his deposition he testified he was laid up in bed, and had symptoms in his low back and legs including shooting pain and numbness. There are also inconsistencies between Claimant's testimony at hearing and the medical records. On August 27, 2003, Dr. Bain noted that Claimant's pain got a lot worse in May 2003, and on November 3, 2003, Dr. Benzaquen, noted that Claimant developed pain and other symptoms one year after his 1999 surgery. Claimant said the doctors who recorded significant complaints of pain between 1999 and his accident were wrong. On redirect, Claimant did admit that he has a very bad memory and that he tried to testify as best he could. He feels he has a bad memory due to the medication he takes.

Fact Witnesses

Dave Hunt, assembly shift leader, and Frank Neel, work leader, testified by deposition on behalf of Employer. Both were Claimant's supervisors the night of the incident, and observed Claimant after he had made his way from the plant floor to Mr. Hunt's office to report his injury, which occurred sometime in the first half of the shift. These witnesses agreed Claimant was in obvious pain that that night, which caused him to fall to the floor. Claimant never indicated to either man that he had an accident at work, or that his pain was related to work. Both Mr. Hunt and Mr. Neel testified that in the few weeks leading up to the incident at work, Claimant had complained of back pain, and had mentioned he would have to miss work in the near future to have some sort of diagnostic test. Mr. Hunt offered to call an ambulance, but Claimant wanted his

wife to take him home.

Medical Records

Claimant has a history of back troubles that predate his work incident. In early November 1998, Claimant came under the care of Dr. Michael Chabot (Exhibit J) for e

Full decision text continues in the plain-text archive copy.

Related Decisions

affirmed

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's award allowing workers' compensation benefits to Theresa Thompson for a low back injury sustained on July 20, 2010 while lifting and shelving copper coils. The claimant was entitled to temporary total disability benefits, permanent partial disability compensation, and medical aid totaling over $223,000, with additional underpayment and back pay amounts owed.

back12,259 words

Brown v. Noranda Aluminum, Inc.(2023)

February 3, 2023#16-027102

affirmed

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the administrative law judge's award granting permanent total disability compensation to Donald Brown for his work-related injuries to his back and left elbow. The Commission rejected the Second Injury Fund's argument that an anxiety disability should be considered in the PTD determination, finding that non-qualifying psychiatric disabilities need not be factored into the analysis.

back7,339 words

The Commission modified the ALJ's award to allow compensation for unpaid past medical expenses for employee Rodney Battles, who sustained a work-related back injury on October 5, 2016, requiring two back surgeries. The decision clarifies that an employer's duty to provide statutorily-required medical aid is absolute and unqualified under Missouri workers' compensation law.

back6,444 words

Gourley v. Cox Medical Center(2021)

December 15, 2021#07-031701

affirmed

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the administrative law judge's award allowing workers' compensation benefits for Carol Gourley's injury sustained on January 13, 2007 at Cox Medical Center. One commissioner dissented, arguing the ALJ erred in denying payment for unpaid medical bills ($173,896.25) and temporary total disability benefits ($109,574.64) related to the compensable 2007 injury.

back12,971 words

Comer v. Central Programs, Inc.(2021)

August 11, 2021#16-085212

affirmed

The Commission affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's award of permanent total disability compensation, finding the employee's November 1, 2016 back injury combined with qualifying preexisting disabilities met statutory requirements for Second Injury Fund liability. The employee's preexisting lower left extremity and thoracic disabilities, each exceeding fifty weeks of permanent partial disability, directly aggravated and accelerated the primary work-related back injury resulting in permanent total disability.

back14,532 words