| Issued by THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION |
| FINAL AWARD ALLOWING COMPENSATION |
| (Affirming Award and Decision of Administrative Law Judge) |
| Injury No.: 02-026220 |
| Employee: | Bob D. Burnett |
| Employer: | Murphy Company |
| Insurer: | St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company |
| Additional Party: | Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund |
| Date of Accident: | March 15, 2002 |
| Place and County of Accident: | St. Charles County, Missouri |
| 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 July 6, 2005. The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Kevin Dinwiddie, issued July 6, 2005, is attached and incorporated by this reference. |
| The Commission further approves and affirms the administrative law judge's allowance of attorney's fee herein as being fair and reasonable. |
| Any past due compensation shall bear interest as provided by law. |
| Given at Jefferson City, State of Missouri, this 31st day of March 2006. |
| LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION |
| William F. Ringer, Chairman |
| Alice A. Bartlett, Member |
| DISSENTING OPINION FILED |
| John J. Hickey, Member |
| Attest: |
| Secretary |
| DISSENTING OPINION |
I join my fellow commissioners in awarding compensation in this claim. However, I dissent from the portion of the award denying compensation for employee's disc injury. I would modify the award to award compensation for the disc injury.
The administrative law judge concluded that employee did not establish a medical causal relationship between his March 15, 2002, accident and his disc injury. I disagree.
The claimant has the burden of proving all the essential elements of the claim and must establish a causal connection between the accident and the injury. Fischer v. Archdiocese of St. Louis-Cardinal Ritter Institute, 793 S.W.2d 195, 198 (Mo.App. E.D.1990). The claimant does not, however, have to establish the elements of his case on the basis of absolute certainty. Id. It is sufficient if he shows them by reasonable probability. Id. "Probability means founded on reason and experience which inclines the mind to believe but leaves room for doubt." Id. at 198-99; Ellis v. Western Elec. Co., 664 S.W.2d 639 (Mo.App.1984).
Cook v. Sunnen Products Corp., 937 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Mo. App. 1996).
"[A]ll doubts should be resolved in favor of the employee and in favor of coverage, but a claim will not be validated where some essential element is lacking." Id. at 223 .
Employee credibly testified that before the March 2002 accident he did not experience radicular symptoms on his left side. The medical records in evidence confirm that all previous reported radicular complaints related to employee's right side. Employee testified that he began experiencing left radicular symptoms as early as July 2002. Employee's testimony of left-sided symptoms is bolstered by the August 14, 2002, entry in the medical records of Dr. Murphy, chiropractor; "less lower back pain, left side looser." Employee credibly testified that his radicular symptoms progressively worsened over time until they became so unrelenting that he reported to his physician who ordered an MRI to identify the source of the symptoms.
Dr. Lichtenfeld explained how the twisting injury resulted in a disc herniation. He further explained how over time normal activities can result in inflammation of the bulging disc material, resulting in increased pressure on the nerve root and a progressive worsening of employee's radicular symptoms.
Both Dr. Taylor and Dr. Lichtenfeld are of the opinion that employee's March 15, 2002, work accident was the substantial factor in causing his work injury. Dr. Taylor, treating neurosurgeon, believes, "his pathology is clearly related to his on the job injury. I feel that his injury either completely caused the present pathology or significantly contributed to and/or aggravated his present spinal condition."
Dr. Lichtenfeld diagnosed the following:
- Chronic lumbrosacral spine strain.
- Herniated nucleus pulposus on the left at L4-5 and L5-S1.
- Incitation, exacerbation and acceleration of pre-existing degenerative changes in the lumbar spine.
- Status post left L4-5 and left L5-S1 microdiscectomy, foraminotomy, and laminotomy.
- Recurrent disc herniation on the left at L5-S1.
- Bulging disc at L4-5.
- Residual left L5 and S1 radiculopathy.
He believes, "[t]he substantial cause of these diagnoses was the accident at the patient's workplace on or about March 15, 2002." Dr. Lichtenfeld assesses employee's overall lumbar disability at 45 % permanent partial disability of the person as a whole, not adjusting for employee's preexisting lumbar disability.
Employee sustained no accidents between the time he sustained the March 15, 2002, work injury and the time he began experiencing left-sided radicular symptoms. Dr. Lichtenfeld's explanation of the gradual occurrence of the symptoms is consistent with employee's testimony of the development of his symptoms, the medical records in evidence, and the opinion of the treating surgeon, Dr. Taylor.
Dr. Cantrell would expect a report of radicular symptoms closer in time to the accident before he would find a causal connection. Dr. Lichtenfeld's explanation of the progressive onset of the symptoms persuades me that an immediate, acute onset of symptoms is not necessary to make the causal link.
I find Dr. Lichtenfeld's opinion regarding causation to be more credible than 2002, work accident caused his disc herniation and radicular pain. Employee's lumbar surgery was necessary to cure and relieve him of the effects of the work injury.
I would award to employee the following compensation: additional temporary total disability for the period of time he was off work due to his surgery and recovery; permanent partial disability of 30 % of the body as a whole referable to the lumbar spine; all past medical expenses he claims; and future medical treatment as needed to cure and relieve him of the effects of his work injury.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent from decision of the majority of the Commission affirming the administrative law judge's denial of compensation for employee's disc injury.
John J. Hickey, Member