Melissa Lantz v. Monsanto Chemical Company

exist the appearance of impropriety because of my previous status with the law firm of Evans and Dixon, I had no involvement or participation in the decision in this case until a stalemate was reached between the other two members of the Commission. As a result, pursuant to the rule of necessity, I am compelled to participate in this case because there is no other mechanism in place to resolve the issues in the claim. Barker v. Secretary of State's Office, 752 S.W.2d 437 (Mo. App. 1988).

Having reviewed the evidence and considered the whole record, I join in and adopt the award and decision of the administrative law judge allowing benefits.

William F. Ringer, Chairman

Employee: Melissa Lantz

Injury No.: 01-141314

Dependents: N/A

Employer: Monsanto Chemical Company

Insurer: Self-Insured

Hearing Date:

Checked by: MDL:tr

Before the

Division of Workers'

Compensation

Department of Labor and Industrial

Second Injury Fund Relations of Missouri

Jefferson City, Missouri

December 16, 2005 and January 10, 2006

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: January 22, 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

1. Second Injury Fund liability: Yes

15 weeks of permanent partial disability from Second Injury Fund

$\ 4,713.90

TOTAL: $\quad \ 38,038.82

1. Future requirements awarded: Future medical treatment pursuant to Award

Said payments to begin immediately and to be payable and be subject to modification and review as provided by law.

The compensation awarded to the claimant shall be subject to a lien in the amount of 25 % of all payments hereunder in favor of the following attorney for necessary legal services rendered to the claimant:

Mr. Kurt Wolfgram

A hearing was held on December 16, 2005, at the Division of Workers’ Compensation in the City of St. Louis. The record remained open until January 10, 2006, at which time additional evidence was received. Melissa Lantz ("Claimant") was represented by Mr. Kurt Wolfgram. Monsanto Chemical Company, which is self-insured, was represented by Mr. Edward Vokoun. The Second Injury Fund was represented by Assistant Attorney General Michael Finneran. Mr. Wolfgram requested a fee of 25% of Claimant’s award.

The parties stipulated that on or about January 22, 2001, Claimant sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment; Claimant was an employee of Employer; venue is proper in the City of St. Louis; and the claim was timely filed. Claimant is entitled to the maximum rates of compensation of 599.96 for total disability benefits and 314.26 for permanent partial disability benefits. Employer paid medical benefits of $36,974.34 and long-term disability benefits.

The issues for resolution by hearing are medical causation; liability of Employer for past medical benefits; reasonableness and necessity of certain medical expenses; liability of Employer for past temporary total disability benefits; nature and extent of permanent disability; and liability of the Second Injury Fund.

Based upon the competent and substantial evidence, I find:

Claimant received a B.S. Degree in Chemistry from Truman State University. In July 1992, she was hired at Sigma Chemical as a Production Chemist.

Claimant had a motor vehicle accident in 1996. Her primary care physician, Joseph Thompson, M.D., referred her to a spinal specialist, Dr. Randolph, who subsequently referred her for physical therapy, which she attended at ProRehab and Fenton Physical Therapy. She ultimately found aquatic exercise at the YMCA to be the best solution for her back pain.

Claimant’s job at Sigma involved a great deal of lifting. After her car accident, she was no longer able to lift. Claimant left Sigma Chemical to work as a Discovery Medical Chemist for Employer in April 1998.

On January 22, 2001, Claimant was in the lab, when she smelled an odor from her co-worker’s workstation. She testified her co-worker then ran out of the lab, and she took that as her cue to leave as well. She heard a loud whooshing, a red liquid spewed out, stoppers blew out, and a white puff of smoke came out of her co-worker’s exhaust hood. After she left that lab, she went to her home lab, and her co-worker called Safety & Emergency Response.

As a member of the emergency response team and captain of the building, her role in the clean up was to assist the responding teams by mixing neuralizing chemicals for use in the cleanup. Claimant experienced throat,

lung, chest irritation, dry mucous membranes, and coughing for days after this incident.

On February 1, 2001, Claimant was emptying a solvent trap when a vapor hit her and she experienced sharp chest pain. Claimant first sought medical treatment when she saw Dr. Trottier on February 5th. Dr. Trottier listened to her chest and performed a pulmonary function test which was normal. After February 5th, her chest pain and coughing continued.

Claimant was fitted for a full face/head respirator, and used this in the lab from February 12th, until she stopped working in November 2001. She made modifications in her work process, including performing common practices such as washing lab equipment with Acetone in her hood, and weighing small amounts of chemicals in her hood.

Claimant testified that between February and July 2001, she was working with a full respirator, and continued to work although she was experiencing low energy and low grade fever that caused her to miss some days from work. She attributes these symptoms to the chemicals she was working with. On July 9, 2001, as Claimant was pouring a chemical, it started floating through the air and she experienced chest pain. On July 13, 2001, Claimant saw Dr. Godar, the onsite company doctor. She underwent spirometry testing, which was normal. Claimant was eventually referred by Employer to Dr. Tuteur.

When Claimant first saw Dr. Tuteur on October 9, 2001, she was having problems with chemicals even outside work, including a reaction to idling buses, perfume, fabric softeners, cleansers in the bathroom, and anything with a strong odor. She underwent a chest x-ray, arterial blood gases, and pulmonary function testing. Her pulmonary function tests were normal, but her methacholine challege test was stopped when Claimant began to hyperventilate. Dr. Tuteur diagnosed chemically induced bronchial reactivity, and recommended an Advair inhaler and Albuterol inhaler for rescue. She was instructed on rigorous environmental controls. She testified she removed all scented candles from her home, stopped using regular household cleaners, changed soaps, stopped using perfume and hair spray, and threw out potpourri. She rid her home of boxes full of chemicals and fragrances. Her symptoms started progressing in early September 2001. Her understanding was that with each exposure she would grow increasingly sensitive.

The day after her visit to Dr. Tuteur, she spoke to her supervisors, and she was put on desk duty. She testified that by the end of October 2001, she had a meeting with the Human Resources Director and it was determined Employer would try to find her other employment outside of the lab. In the meantime, her doctors were trying to come up with a plan to provide nebulizer/rescue medications in her lab. She was not allowed in the lab without rescue medicines.

On November 8, 2001, a cleaning closet was left open at work. The ventilation system in the building blew the chemicals in front of her desk. She described chest pain lasting all day, and suffered an attack on the way home, requiring Foradil for rescue. She experienced another attack while driving around later that evening, and went to the emergency room. She did not return to work after November 8, 2001. On November 8, 2001, her short-term disability benefits from Employer began.

The