Terry Mosier v. Daimler Chrysler

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: August 25, 2002
5. State location where accident occurred or occupational disease was contracted: St. Louis, Mo.
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: Claimant injured his right shoulder while moving a large piece of equipment with the help of co-employees.
12. Did accident or occupational disease cause death? No Date of death? N/A
13. $\operatorname{Part}(\mathrm{s})$ of body injured by accident or occupational disease: right shoulder
14. Nature and extent of any permanent disability: 25 % referable to the right shoulder at the 232 week level (settled)
15. Compensation paid to-date for temporary disability: -0 -
16. Value necessary medical aid paid to date by employer/insurer? $\ 14,773.58

Employee: Terry Mosier Injury No.: 02-156273 17. Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer/insurer? N/A 18. Employee's average weekly wages: Sufficient to be at maximum rate 19. Weekly compensation rate: PTD - $\ 649.32, PPD - $\ 340.12 20. Method wages computation: Stipulated

1. Amount of compensation payable: (Settled)
2. Second Injury Fund liability: Yes

The issue to be decided is the nature and extent of Second Injury Fund liability for either PTD or PPD.

Any objections not expressly ruled upon are overruled. Claimant offered Exhibits A through J. Exhibits A through C and E through J were admitted without objection. SIF objection to Exhibit D is overruled. As a rule, questions as to the sources and bases of the expert's opinion affect the weight, rather than the admissibility of the opinion, and are properly left to the [fact finder]. (Citation omitted). Wulfing v. Kansas City Southern Industries, Inc. 842 S.W.2d 133, 152 (Mo.App. W.D.1992). (Overruled on other grounds by Executive Bd. of Missouri Baptist Convention v. Carnahan, 170 S.W.3d 437 (Mo.App. W.D. 2005)), See Shoemaker v. Ekunno 960 S.W.2d 527, 532 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). SIF offered no exhibits.

I find, by a preponderance of the evidence, the following facts based on the testimony, medical records and expert opinions presented during the hearing:

1. Claimant is a 51-year-old resident of Iron County, Missouri and a former employee of Employer. Claimant worked at Employer's Fenton location from March 12, 1973 to December 2002 as an assembler, material handler (driving a forklift and tow motor), and as a janitor for general services. Claimant retired on December 31, 2002.
2. Claimant dropped out of school in 1972. During layoffs with Employer, Claimant successfully completed the high school equivalency test in 1975, and received certification in heating, cooling and refrigeration from Jefferson Community College in 1990. He did not work in this field. Claimant possesses no other formal education or training.
3. Claimant testified that before the August 2002 accident, he was worked full time as a general services janitor, and he could mop, sweep, and empty cans, while standing most of the time and frequently bending, twisting, and lifting up to 20 pounds. Claimant requested help from his co-workers as needed. Claimant also performed his own yard work.

Primary Injury - August 25, 2002

1. On August 25, 2002, Claimant sustained a right rotator cuff tear while lifting a lawnmower up stairs with two coworkers. Dr. Petkovich performed an arthroscopic repair and reconstruction of Claimant's right rotator cuff, and resection of the distal clavicle on February 13, 2003. On July 11, 2003, Dr. Petkovich noted Claimant had good range of motion and x-rays revealed good alignment. Dr. Petkovich found Claimant had reached maximum medical improvement and released him to work as tolerated; noting Claimant had retired (Ex B).
2. Claimant testified he did not return to work after being released from care because he was unable to work. After the shoulder injury his complaints included: dull shoulder pain, inability to fly fish, use crutches or a manual wheelchair, pain reaching overhead and inability to sit for long periods.
3. Between 1983 and surgery in February 2003, Claimant testified he worked full time with the assistance of co-workers as needed. He also changed jobs with Employer three times in an effort to reduce discomfort from pre-existing conditions.
4. Claimant settled his primary case with Employer for 25 % PPD of the right shoulder on April 14, 2005

1. On July 26, 1981, Claimant testified he was involved in an automobile accident where he fractured his ankles, left knee, pelvis, lumbar spine, three ribs, and left hip, sustained a concussion and lost several teeth. Claimant was off work until September of 1983 and received Social security disability. He returned to work early in order to preserve his employment and benefits. Upon his return to work, Claimant testified plant medical imposed permanent light duty restrictions. The restrictions, known as "PQX", were circulated to all departments and limited the work Claimant could perform. Restrictions included no repetitive bending or stooping and limited lifting to 25 pounds.
2. Claimant testified he sustained injuries to his urethra and scrotum, as a result of the automobile accident; and underwent a skin graft of his right ankle and left knee, and pins in the left ankle. He had a fractured hip and he was in a cast for both legs from his hips to his toes from July until November 1981. Claimant was admitted to the hospital on three occasions between July and December of 1981.
3. Claimant testified he has been in pain since the automobile accident, and he has not been able to bass or trout fish. His

ankles swell by the end of the day, the right being the worse. Claimant testified to the following complaints from the automobile accident: difficulty sitting for long periods, pain from his left hip required him to remove his wallet from his left pocket, pain from his low back to his left ankle, tightness around the waist, difficulty standing upright. Claimant propped his left ankle to relieve discomfort. After the August 2002 injury Claimant testified both ankles became worse. Claimant has used a cane since 1982.

1. Claimant sustained bilateral carpal tunnel releases in 1991 and 1992. He felt immediate relief however the pain returned a year later; extending to his upper arm and chest area.
2. On May 17, 1994, Claimant received a repeat triple arthrodesis of the right ankle. On July 11, 1994, Claimant's right foot was debrided for infection and partial skin necrosis. Following treatment Claimant missed a ye