Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

Robin Mahoney v. Bath & Body Works, Inc.

Decision date: March 6, 200619 pages

Summary

The Commission reversed the Administrative Law Judge's temporary award issued on July 28, 2005, and issued a final award in lieu thereof regarding a back injury claim from September 11, 2002. The disputed issues included medical causality between the accident and back condition, need for back surgery, medical care liability, temporary total disability benefits, maximum medical improvement status, and permanent partial disability determination.

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

Issued by THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
FINAL AWARD
(Reversing Temporary Award issued by Administrative Law Judge)
Injury No.: 02-149736
Employee:Robin Mahoney
Employer:Bath & Body Works, Inc.
Insurer:Self-Insured Specialty Risk Services
Additional Party:Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund
Date of Accident:September 11, 2002
Place and County of Accident:Camden County, Missouri
The above-entitled workers' compensation case is submitted to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) for review as provided bysection 287.480 RSMo. We have reviewed the evidence, read the briefs of the parties and considered the entire record. Pursuant to section 286.090 RSMo, the Commission reverses the temporary award and decision of the administrativelaw judge dated July 28, 2005, and in lieu thereof, the Commission issues its final award. The temporary award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Robert Dierkes, is attached hereto solely for reference.
I. Stipulations of Parties
The parties stipulated to the following: jurisdiction; employment relationship; injury due to an accident arising out of and in the course ofemployment; venue; claim for compensation timely filed; employee timely reported injury to employer; both employer and employee were operating pursuant to the provisions of the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Act; compensation rate of$377.55/340.12; date of accident September 11, 2002; and the employer was an authorized self-insured pursuant to the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Act.
II. Disputed Issues
The parties placed the following issues in dispute at the evidentiary hearing: whether or not there is a medical causal relationship between theaccident occurring September 11, 2002, and the resultant medical condition being alleged by employee, including, but not limited to, the need for back surgery; whether employer is liable to provide employeewith additional medical care and treatment deemed reasonable and necessary to cure and relieve employee from the effects of the injuries sustained pursuant to the provisions of section 287.140 RSMo; employer’s liability, if any, for temporary total disability benefits; whether employee has achieved maximum medical improvement on account of theinjury sustained, and, if so, whether a final award is to be issued in lieu of a temporary award; if a final award is issued, the nature and extent of employee’s permanent partial disability attributable to the injury, if any; and, if a final award is issued, the liability, if any, of the Second Injury Fund.
Based on the stipulations of the parties as to the issues in dispute, it was the contention of the employee at the evidentiary hearing that a temporary award should be issuedawarding employee medical care and treatment deemed reasonable and necessary to cure and relieve employee from the effects of her injury as well as be awarded temporary total disability. Conversely, it was the contention of the employer that a final award should be issued because employee had achieved maximum medical improvement, no additionalimprovement was envisaged, and employee’s condition had reached a state of permanency, in lieu of a temporary condition, on account of the injury sustained.

III. Facts

The employee, the husband of the employee, and two co-employees, testified at the hearing. The remaining evidence consisted of exhibits from the parties comprised of medical records, medical reports, deposition of Dr. Koprivica and both the transcribed deposition of Dr. Coyle as well as the videotape deposition of Dr. Coyle.

In summary fashion, employee testified she was born September 23, 1954; she admittedly experienced back problems prior to September 11, 2002; she underwent back surgery under the auspices of Dr. Backer on June 21, 1999; due to a disc herniation at the L-5 transitional level on the right side Dr. Backer performed a discectomy directly removing the disc and also performed a medial and lateral facetectomy. Employee followed up postoperatively with Dr. Backer undergoing a postoperative MRI on August 3, 1999; employee's symptoms partially resolved over the next few months and employee's last consultation/visit with Dr. Backer postoperatively was October 26, 1999.

In April 2001, employee experienced recurrent back pain and lower extremity pain for which she consulted her primary physician, Dr. Osborn, with complaints of bi-lateral leg and back pain for the past few weeks which had progressively worsened. These complaints and symptomotology were not associated with any specific accident.

Employee became employed with employer in July 2002 and on September 11, 2002, employee sustained an injury due to an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment; i.e., a cabinet fell forward knocking employee to the floor. Her principal treatment on account of this injury was rendered under the auspices of Dr. Coyle, a board certified orthopedist. Dr. Coyle treated employee between November 13, 2002 and January 8, 2003.

Dr. Coyle rendered the following medical opinions:

To summarize my earlier conclusions, it can be stated with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Dr. Backer performed reasonable and appropriate surgery in June of 1999 for a foraminal disc herniation. This provided relief at that time, however, Robin Mahoney has experienced progressive degenerative collapse of the L5 transitional segment on the right side, secondary to degenerative problems, prior surgery and scoliosis. There is no evidence that she sustained a recurrent disc herniation or a traumatic injury to the lumbar spine necessitating surgery as a consequence of the 9/11/02 work incident. There is no objective radiographic evidence that Robin Mahoney's work activities of 9/11/02 caused a change in pathology necessitating surgery. I do agree that she does need a lumbar fusion, however, this is directly attributable to her history of scoliosis, degenerative changes and a prior facetectomy at L5 transitional level on the right and progressive collapse at that level.

These medical opinions were expressed by Dr. Coyle in a report authored by him on November 4, 2004.

Dr. Coyle also testified via videotape deposition. Due to the medical complexity of this particular injury and residuals medically causally related to this injury, the Commission sets out verbatim salient videotape testimony of Dr. Coyle as follows:

Q: What is that opinion?

A: No. 1 she has scoliosis with a concavity on the right side of her lumbar spine. There are some other details as to the nature of the scoliosis. No. 2, she had surgery in 1999 to address nerve root impingement at what is referred to as L4 - 5, in some cases L5-S1, it's the same level in both places. She had a radiculopathy at the time of surgery, a protracted course following the surgery with problems sufficient to warrant postoperative evaluation with an MRI. When she saw me she had an MRI showing almost complete absence of the facet at L4-5 on the right side coupled with concavity of the spine at that level. What she did not have was any evidence of an acute injury at that level. We have films from prior to her surgery, within two months of her surgery in 1999, an MRI from 2002, there's no significant difference in pathology on any of those studies. We have a CT myelogram which I obtained in November of 2002 and that shows no evidence of a recurrent disc herniation. It does show postoperative sequela specifically at the site of the facetectomy and

scoliosis. So based on reviewing those studies, I could conclude with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the proximate cause of her radiculopathy was compression of the nerves on the right side due to scoliosis and instability with a history of prior discectomy and absence of the facet.

Q: Okay. So I'm repeating what you just said, but these conditions that you diagnosed, is that what you attribute the limitations and complaints to?

A: Yes.

Q: And then do you have an opinion based on a reasonable degree of medical certainty whether the incident that Ms. Mahoney described having occurred at Bath \& Body Works on September 11th, 2002 was a substantial factor in causing any of the conditions diagnosed and previously discussed? A: It is my impression within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that that incident did not cause the pathology in the spine which is causing the sciatica in the right lower extremity and back pain and necessitating a lumbar fusion for scoliosis.

Q: Do you have an opinion as to whether the condition that you diagnosed and discussed a minute ago as a source of her complaints and limitations preexisted and was unrelated to the September 11, 2002 accident?

A: Yes.

Q: What is that opinion?

A: My opinion is that it is related to scoliosis and history of prior surgery, progressive degeneration at the affected level.

Q: And do you have an opinion whether her work at Bath \& Body Works and specifically this accident of September 11, 2002 caused or could have caused a change in pathology or change in the preexisting condition of her lumbar spine?

A: Yes. My opinion is that if one looks at the radiographic studies, there's no evidence of an acute injury, there's no evidence of a change other than progressive degeneration at that level secondary to scoliosis.

Q: Do you have an opinion as to whether the accident of September 11, 2002 was a substantial factor in causing any kind of a new injury or condition to the lumbar spine?

A: Yes, it's my impression to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that she sustained a lumbar sprain at that time.

Q: Do you have an opinion as to whether any of the conditions that may have preexisted this incident that you previously described, in which you indicated would be unrelated, were such that they would constitute a hindrance or obstacle to employment or re - employment prior to the accident?

A: Are you talking about the conditions of her spine prior to the accident?

Q: Right.

A: Yes, I think they would have.

Q: Okay. Do you have an opinion of whether the medical treatment Ms. Mahoney received following her September 11, 2002 accident with regards to her lumbar spine was reasonably required to cure and relieve her from the effects of a work-related injury?

A: Yes, I do. I think it was reasonably required to relieve her of the effects of the injury. Having said that, she has a very complex spinal disorder and so the work-up that she had, which was reasonable and appropriate, was more extensive than it would need to have been for someone who did not have preexisting scoliosis and prior spine surgery, specifically the CT myelogram would not have been necessary, the diagnostic injections and all that would not have been necessary.

Q: You indicated that she may have suffered a lumbar sprain or strain as a result of this accident?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you have an opinion whether she requires any additional treatment as a result of that?

A: It's my impression that the symptoms that are perpetuated are due to the scoliosis and instability and not to the accident.

Q: Do you have an opinion as to whether she would require future medical treatment with regard to her lumbar spine?

A: Yes.

Q: What is that opinion?

A: Well it's based on when I last examined her, so I can't say as to how she's doing now, but based on when Ilast examined her, reasonable appropriate treatment would include a lumbar fusion.

Q: Do you have an opinion then whether this treatment would have been necessary even had the accident of September 11, 2002 never occurred?

A: Yes.

Q: What is that opinion?

A: My opinion is that she has a progressive degenerative and congenital problem at her lumbar spine and will require ongoing treatment for that.

Q: And do you have an opinion whet

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