Elaine Myers-Clardy v. St. Louis Community College

The above-entitled workers' compensation case is submitted to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (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 May 24, 2005, with this supplemental opinion. The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Karla Boresi, issued May 24, 2005, is attached and incorporated by this reference.

In the instant claim, the employee is alleging that she sustained a myriad of medical conditions due to alleged “work related stress” stemming from a series of events that occurred at work on August 31, 2001.

The Commission agrees with the findings and conclusions of law made by the administrative law judge, i.e., the employee did not prove she sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of her employment.

Employee’s contention at trial was that she sustained a mental stress type injury or psychiatric disorder due to certain described events that occurred at work on August 31, 2001. After reviewing the entire record, as to the issue of employee’s alleged mental stress or psychiatric disorder, and any relationship to events occurring at work August 31, 2001, the Commission finds the most credible, persuasive and cogent medical opinions adduced at the hearing were the medical opinions rendered by Dr. Smith.

In summary fashion, Dr. Smith was of the opinion that employee had not sustained a psychiatric disorder due to the events occurring at work on August 31, 2001; employee was able to work without restrictions from a psychiatric standpoint; and consequently, employee had not sustained any permanent disability attributable to any work events occurring August 31, 2001. Dr. Smith was of the further opinion that employee had a conscious exaggeration of her level of impairment and secondary gain was a contributing factor.

The Commission, based on the credible medical opinions of Dr. Smith, is convinced that the work events occurring August 31, 2001, forming the basis of this claim for compensation, did not result in any medical condition for which employee is seeking workers’ compensation benefits. No medical condition for which the employee is presently seeking workers’ compensation benefits is medically causally related to the described events occurring at work on August 31, 2001.

Accordingly, the Commission finds the administrative law judge correctly weighed and evaluated the lay and medical testimony in reaching her conclusions. Employee’s claims for workers’ compensation benefits from both the employer and the Second Injury Fund are denied. Employee did not sustain an injury due to an accident

William F. Ringer, Chairman

John J. Hickey, Member

Attest:

Employee: Elaine Myers-Clardy

Injury No.: 01-105150

Dependents: N/A

Before the

$\square$ Division of Workers'

Employer: St. Louis Community College

Department of Labor and Industrial

Additional Party: Second Injury Fund

Relations of Missouri

Injurer: Self-Insured

Jefferson City, Missouri

Hearing Date: February 17, 2005

Checked by: KOB:tr

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 have occurred on August 31, 2001
5. State location where accident occurred or occupational disease was contracted: St. Louis, Missouri
6. Was above employee in employ of above employer at time of alleged accident or occupational disease? Yes.
7. Did employer receive proper notice? Yes.
8. Did accident or occupational disease arise out of and in the course of the employment? Yes.
9. Was claim for compensation filed within time required by Law? Yes.
10. Was employer insured by above insurer? Yes.

1. Describe work employee was doing and how accident occurred or occupational disease contracted: In assisting a student, Claimant interrupted a professor's class, which prompted an angry outburst and reprimand by the professor, and caused Claimant to feel threatened.
2. Did accident or occupational disease cause death? No
3. Part(s) of body injured by accident or occupational disease: N/A
4. Nature and extent of any permanent disability: N/A
5. Compensation paid to-date for temporary disability: $\ 0
6. Value necessary medical aid paid to date by employer/insurer? $\ 0

Employee: Elaine Myers-Clardy Injury No.: 01-105150

1. Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer/insurer? $\ 0
2. Employee's average weekly wages: $\ 465.43
3. Weekly compensation rate: $\$ 310.30 / \ 310.30
4. Method wages computation: By agreement.

1. Amount of compensation payable: $\ 0.00
2. Second Injury Fund liability: No

TOTAL:

1. Future requirements awarded: None.

Employee: Elaine Myers-Clardy

Dependents: N/A

Employer: St. Louis Community College

Additional Party: Second Injury Fund

Insurer: Self-Insured

Injury No.: 01-105150

Before the

Division of Workers'

Compensation

Department of Labor and Industrial

Relations of Missouri

Jefferson City, Missouri

Checked by: KOB:tr

The matter of Elaine Myers-Clardy ("Claimant") proceeded to hearing to determine whether Claimant is entitled to workers' compensation benefits. Louise Ryterski represented Claimant. Loretta Simon represented self-insured St. Louis Community College ("Employer"). Assistant Attorney General Eileen Krispin represented the Second Injury Fund.

The parties agreed that as of August 31, 2001, Claimant was an employee of Employer and was earning an average weekly wage of $\ 465.43. The applicable rate of compensation is $\ 310.30 for both total disability benefits and permanent partial disability benefits. Venue, notice, and timeliness of the claim are not at issue. Employer has consistently denied this claim, and as a consequence has not paid any benefits.

The issues to be determined are:

1. Was Claimant exposed to work related stress arising out of and in the course of her employment such that the stress rises to the level of a compensable injury;
2. Is Claimant's medical condition causally related to her alleged stress exposure;
3. Is Employer liable for past medical benefits in the stipulated amount of $\ 1,616.00;
4. Is Claimant entitled to recover temporary total disability benefits of six weeks beginning September 2, 2001 and ending October 16, 2001;
5. What is the nature and extent of Claimant's disability;
6. What is the liability of the Second Injury Fund; and
7. Is Claimant obligated to reimburse Employer its fees and expenses pursuant to Section 287.560?

It should be noted that Claimant seeks permanent total disability benefits, or in the alternative, permanent partial disability benefits.

Claimant is a 58-year-old high school graduate who earned a two-year correspondence degree in accounting. She has worked primarily as a secretary at various locations in the educational and private sectors. She also owned her own medical billing company for approximately eighteen months. She was compensated for babysitting her grandchildren from 2001 through 2003. She had a certified daycare facility and earned up to $\ 4,000.00 in one year, although she testified she also had help from other family members.

In the summer of 1998, Employer hired Claimant as a secretary/administrative clerk. In this role, she served as a receptionist in the Liberal Arts Department, assisted students, handled grades, assisted professors, ordered textbooks, answered the phone, and performed copying and other administrative jobs. From Monday through Thursday, she worked the evening shift from 1:00 to 10:00 when she was the sole secretary, and on Fridays she worked from 8:00 to 4:30.

On August 31, 2001, an incident occurred between Claimant and Professor Skinner, a member of the English Department. From Claimant's perspective, the events unfolded as follows: Sometime before noon, a student appeared in the office and requested help with a personal problem, which Claimant provided. The student then indicated that she wanted to return to class, but was worried because she had left the class without permission. Claimant told her boss, Jim Soden, that she was to accompany the student back to class, and he said, "Okay." Claimant testified she had escorted students back to class before, and had never been told not to.

When Claimant and the student arrived at Professor Skinner's classroom, she motioned him to come to the door, and explained the student's situation. According to the Claimant, the professor started yelling, in an enraged manner, phrases such as, "Why are you bringing this student to class?" and "I don't want her-You are just a damn secretary!" According to Claimant, he raised his voice in an enraged manner, but did not make threatening gestures. After ten minutes, she and the student returned to the office, wondering what had happened. Then, the professor appeared at her desk, continuing the yelling for five or ten minutes further.

The professor went to the nearby faculty lounge, returned to Claimant's desk with a steaming cup of coffee, and continued to yell, using the words "hell" and "damn." 111 This time, Claimant said Professor Skinner as "foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog" and shaking the steaming hot cup of coffee at her. She testified she was fearful she would throw the coffee at her. He was "spitting profusely," and standing above in a manner she perceived as threatening. According to Claimant, Professor Skinner then returned to his class.

Claimant went to Jim Soden's office, closed the door, and asked what she had done wrong. Professor Skinner then entered the office without knocking, and continued to raise his voice, yelling phrases like, "You ought to stay in your damn place," and "You are just a damn secretary." At one point, Claimant asked Professor Skinner, "What gives you the right?" but without raising her voice. Apparently, Professor Skinner replied, "I'm vested. The college cannot do anything to me."

During the exchange in Jim Soden's office, which again lasted about fifteen minutes, Jim did not say or do anything. Claimant felt she was trapped because the professor stood between her and the door. When he left after fifteen minutes, Claimant started crying. Jim tried to console her but she refused, asking to be left alone, and to be allowed to call her daughter. Jim told her to take the rest of the day off.

When Claimant's daughter arrived, she went to the office to confront Jim and Professor Skinner. According to Claimant, her daughter asked calmly, "Where do you get off disrespecting my mother?" To which, Professor Skinner replied, "Your mother should mind her own damn business. I'm vested - she's only a secretary!" Claimant testified that the tone of the professor was harsh and included crude remarks. When Claimant went home, she was a "total wreck," with her skin crawling and her stomach in a knot. She cried all day and all night. The next day she could not move or stand, her knees were swollen, and