Pamela Grammer v. Meridian Medical Technology

(Affirming Award and Decision of Administrative Law Judge)

Injury No.: 02-136898

Employee: Pamela Grammer

Employer: Meridian Medical Technology

Insurer: Hartford Insurance Company

Additional Party: Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund

Date of Accident: December 18, 2002

Place and County of Accident: St. Louis 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 February 28, 2006. The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Suzette Carlisle, issued February 28, 2006, 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 $\qquad 27^{\text {th }} \qquad$ day of June 2006.

LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

William F. Ringer, Chairman

Alice A. Bartlett, Member

John J. Hickey, Member

Attest:

Secretary

1. Are any benefits awarded herein? Yes.
2. Was the injury or occupational disease compensable under Chapter 287? Yes.
3. Was there an accident or incident of occupational disease under the Law? Yes.
4. Date of accident or onset of occupational disease: December 18, 2002.
5. State location where accident occurred or occupational disease was contracted: St. Louis County, 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.
11. Describe work employee was doing and how accident occurred or occupational disease contracted:

Employee alleges she sustained injury to her hands and wrists from repetitive motions related to assembly of injectors. 12. Did accident or occupational disease cause death? No Date of death? N/A 13. Part(s) of body injured by accident or occupational disease: Both wrists and hands. 14. Nature and extent of any permanent disability: 17.5 % of the left hand, 17.5 % of the right hand, 3 weeks disfigurement and 12.5 % for multiciplicity. 15. Compensation paid to-date for temporary disability: $\ 2,517.27 16. Value necessary medical aid paid to date by employer/insurer? $\ 11,865.78

Employee: Pamela Grammer Injury No.: 02-136898 17. Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer/insurer? N/A 18. Employee's average weekly wages: $\ 518.20 19. Weekly compensation rate: $\$ 345.47 / \ 340.12 20. Method wages computation: Stipulated

1. Amount of compensation payable:

Unpaid medical expenses: None

The above referenced workers’ compensation claim was heard before the undersigned Administrative Law Judge on January 10, 2006. The record was closed after the hearing. Parties submitted post hearing briefs. Claimant was represented by attorney Ray A. Gerritzen. Employer and Insurer were represented by attorney John P. Palombi and the Second Injury Fund (SIF) was represented by attorney Jennifer Sommers. Briefs were submitted from all parties for consideration by February 14, 2006. Hearing venue is correct, and jurisdiction properly lies with the Missouri Division of Workers’ Compensation.

The parties stipulated to the following facts: (1) On December 18, 2002, Meridian Medical Technology, (Employer) was operating under and subject to The Missouri Workers’ Compensation Law, and during this time was fully insured by Hartford Fire Insurance Company.(2) On the alleged date of injury, December 18, 2002, Pamela Grammer (Claimant) was an employee of the Employer, and was working under and subject to The Missouri Workers’ Compensation Law.(3) On December 18, 2002, Claimant sustained an occupational disease which arose out of, and in the course and scope of her employment with Employer.(4) The above-referenced employment and incident of occupational disease occurred in St. Louis County, Missouri.

The issues in dispute are: (1) Whether Claimant sustained any permanent disability as a consequence of the alleged occupational disease; and if

so, what is the nature and extent of the disability?

(2) What is the nature and extent of disfigurement, if any?

(3) Whether Claimant sustained pre-existing disability, and if so, what is the nature and extent of the disability?

(4) Whether SIF is entitled to recover costs for an alleged frivolous SIF claim?

(5) Whether Claimant is entitled to recover costs from SIF due to an alleged baseless charge by SIF?

Only testimony necessary to support this award will be reviewed and summarized.

Claimant offered Exhibits A-B and D-F, which were admitted into evidence. Employer offered Exhibits 1-3, which were admitted.

Any objections not expressly ruled on in this award are overruled.

Claimant, Pamela Grammer, is a thirty-five year old with no formal education beyond 10th grade. She testified she has had problems with weight since she was seven or eight years old. In high school, she recalled weighing 200 lbs and standing $5^{\prime} 6^{1 / 2}$ " tall. Most of her weight gain occurred after her last two children were born. Claimant stated her exact weight is unknown because the scales in the doctor's office only record up to 350 pounds. She estimated her weight to currently be about 400 pounds, and she still stands about $5^{\prime} 6^{1 / 2}$ " tall. Claimant has tried unsuccessfully to lose weight by dieting on various programs, including The Atkins and South Beach diets. While constant exercise worked the best, sometimes she just gives up exercising. She has not tried medication to control her weight.

Claimant has worked as a fast food cashier, in housekeeping, pizza delivery and store manager. Following a one year absence from the workforce, Claimant began working for Employer in March 2000, assembling auto injectors where she continues to be employed.

When Claimant began employment with Employer, she had no problems with her hands or wrists. Nor did she have pre-existing injury or surgery to either wrist or hand. Claimant assembled units for Employer using repetitive motions to screw on power caps.

She described auto injectors as being medicine inside of an injector that shoots into your system, similar to a shot. She estimated she assembled 2,500 injectors per day in an eight hour shift. Employer permitted thirty minutes for lunch and two fifteen minute breaks during the day. She worked mandatory overtime each week. Her work occurred on an assembly line, and she described the movement as "press down and screw on".

Claimant began to experience numbness that woke her during the night, and pain in her arms. She reported this to Employer's safety representative in 2002. She was referred to BJC for treatment. After seeing several doctors, Dr. Richard Coin examined her and ordered a repeat nerve conduction study. Surgery was performed on both hands in January of 2005, approximately two weeks apart.

Claimant testified she was off work from January 7, 2005 to March 1, 2005, when she returned to work. At her request, Employer moved her to the moisture team. The moisture team inspected more injectors than they assembled, which allowed her to work at her own pace. She applied for this job to decrease her work load.

Claimant reports constant swelling in her left hand since the surgery, aching in the forearm and elbow of both upper extremities, decreased grip strength, occasional finger locking when washing dishes, and tenderness along the scar lines. The scars appear to be 1 " to $1 \frac{1}{2}$ " long on each hand.

These limitations required her to change the way she picks up heavy pans at work. In the past, she lifted the pans and carried them to her work station. Now she places the pan on a cart and rolls it to her work station to avoid dropping it. She uses her free arm underneath the pans for added support. On cross examination she testified a pan weighs approximately twenty-five pounds.

She no longer has the strength to hold her nieces and nephews. She can not grip a five pound bowling ball. She is right handed and has more strength in her dominant right hand than the left. She does not wear shoes with laces because she does not want to struggle to tie them.

Claimant's ankles swell and her back hurts if she stands too long at work. She works sit down positions whenever

available. A stand up position should be rotated every two hours, but she cannot do this as she begins having pain after fifteen minutes. She can tolerate standing for about an hour before her ankles swell.

Because of her weight, she cannot go to a restaurant with booths, a baseball game, or sit on amusement park rides. She avoids places that have arms on the chair. She bought a larger car because she could not fit behind the wheel of her old one. She could not fit behind some equipment at work in the old building, but she is able to do so in the new location. If a metal detector has "rolly bars" she has to go through the handicap entrance.

Claimant stated she had strength in her hands before working for Employer. Now she believes that an employer looking at her weight may not want to hire her because she no longer has speed and strength with her hands.

On cross examination by the Employer and SIF, Claimant acknowledged the bi-lateral hand surgery relieved the numbness in her hands. Initially, Claimant was hired as a temporary employee, and based upon her performance Employer offered her a full time position three months later. At the time of injury, she had not been disciplined for inability to perform her job duties, nor was she was ever told that she was not performing satisfactorily. Claimant reported working mandatory overtime the entire time she has worked for Employer. Clamant denied seeing any other family doctors outside of Family Care Center before 2002. She wore a size 3X uniform shirt when she