The claimant, Joan Panhorst, testified about the injury for which she is seeking compensation from Metalcraft. Panhorst testified that she worked for Metalcraft from January 21, 1990 until her termination on August 11, 1997 Testifying as to the nature of the business of Metalcraft, Panhorst stated that they did aluminum and steel, "like make legs like for a table", and sweeper handles; it was mainly with steel and aluminum. My job with Metalcraft was just a worker on different jobs, the claimant said. You would go in and the supervisor would tell you that day the job that he wanted you on; you may work on the same job a couple days, but then they would also move you around. It was all physical type labor, she agreed. At one time the plant manager wanted to know if I would clean the men's restrooms even, which is not part of my normal duties, Panhorst noted.
"Starting to work at Metalcraft I didn't have no injury, but I was stiff and sore", Panhorst testified, but the first real injury I had was May of 1991, I think. I had got my finger in a roll bender and I had to have I think five stitches put in it, she said. I did not file a workers' compensation claim, Panhorst said. Explaining why she did not file a claim, Panhorst testified my supervisor, Melvin Duvall, come down, then the president, Connie Laudy, and Chester Nichols, the vice president and quality control, and the set-up man, Jim Leaky, all come down there, and that was before they took me up to the doctor. And the first thing that was said to me after they got down there was, Chester Nichols said to me - "Anybody that uses that machine without a safety guard should automatically be terminated". And I said - "a safety guard; and I looked at Jim Leaky and I said Jim, a safety guard, where's the safety guard at, I've been working here how long, over a year and a half, I ain't never seen a safety guard"; they looked at Jim and he said there's never been a safety guard. Panhorst stated that a doctor put five stitches in the finger, but she couldn't get any pain pills or nothing. I told the doctor about the office at the workplace that they had pain pills in a little package, and he said it wouldn't hurt for me to take a couple packs of that because if you have pain that day they usually helped out and worked. So when Melvin Duvall, who had taken me to the doctor, got back to work I went ahead and went in his office and then he went to the assistant supervisor right there and when I was coming out the door, I hadn't stepped out of the office yet, the assistant supervisor, Jo Ann Feaserman at the time now Jo Ann Monday, she came up to me and told me that if I filed a workmen's comp claim against them they would find a way to get rid of me, Panhorst stated. And I said a workmen's comp claim, who said anything about a workmen's comp claim; but just remember if you do, we'll find a way to get rid of you; I said, whatever, Panhorst testified. I did not file a workers' comp case as a result of the cut on my finger, Panhorst said, I needed my job. When I went back to work, Melvin Duvall, my supervisor, said - "For your punishment I ought to put you back on the roll benders."; I said, "I'll go back on the roll bender.", and he said, "You ain't scared of it?"; I said, "No, I need my job too bad. I'll go back if that's what you want me to do." This was not a more difficult job than the job I was doing, the claimant stated.
I sustained another injury while working for Metalcraft at the end of 1991, Panhorst said. It was a swelling of my right arm, she stated. Panhorst agreed that she had surgery to one of her hands. It was a result of that injury on the job, she said, it kept getting worse from 1991 on. I finally went to the doctor, Dr. Susi, and he scheduled it for the first month the third day of 1995 and operated on carpal tunnel on my right hand. I did not file a workers' compensation claim myself in connection with this injury because the supervisor told me that sometimes a workmen's comp claim deny it and I would have to pay for it myself, Panhorst stated. Dr. Susi filed a claim, Panhorst stated, I went to him and filled out the paperwork but only put on there what my regular insurance would pay; but then he wanted to know what happened and I told him, but I didn't know it was workmen's comp doctor at the time, nobody told me that before I went to him. And Dr. Susi said I had to go back and tell them at work that he was a workmen's comp doctor and that he was going to turn it in, the claimant said. After the carpal tunnel syndrome surgery, Panhorst stated, about three weeks later Arville Koppelman called me and told me that they were busy, that they needed me back to work, that I would be doing a light job of putting in small bags bolts and nuts and screws and stuff, about five per bag, that they would send with the things they made like tables and stuff. When I went back to work I was put on a packing machine, packing table, packing stuff out, she said. Agreeing that this had an adverse effect on her arm and hand, Panhorst stated after a couple days my right arm was just killing me again. I dropped on the floor an eight-foot box with six sets of doubles poles in it, so I had somebody weigh it and it weighed ten pounds, the claimant said. She agreed that this was more than her hand could handle, and stated that it
really hurt and this increased the pain in her hand. Panhorst agreed that, as indicated in the records, the carpal tunnel release procedure was performed on January 3, 1995. She was asked if anyone at work had ever told her about filing a workers' compensation claim for the carpal tunnel. No, they were mad, she answered, they didn't want me to. They had a bonus at the end of the year, if nobody got hurt you got a gift certificate or a bonus; that's what the incentive was, the claimant said. Dr. Susi turned that in, I never turned it in; I would have gone on my regular insurance, Panhorst stated
At the end of 1994 when they found out that I was going to have something done -- and beginning of '94, I can't remember the date, it was February or March, I had my first breakdown, Panhorst testified. My nerves, because my hand hurt me so bad that I was sleeping on the couch with an arm brace at that time laying on a pillow, and I couldn't move around at night so my hand would quit hurting before I went to work the next morning, Panhorst stated, and by the end of that year I just had to have something done. She was asked if the nervous condition that she had talked about, was that a result of the way she was treated after she injured her hand. "I was scared to death", Panhorst responded. This is because I was already told not to file a workmen's comp, and Dr. Susi said he was going to turn it in; I was already scared then, and I begged him not to, the claimant said, and Dr. Susi said it was law, he had to. And so when I went back and told him and had a meeting with -- Chester Nichols called me in the office, and Chester Nichols and Linda Paley, the human resource person, were there, and when Chester Nichols got the insurance company or workmen's comp people on the phone, I'm not sure which, but he said -- she couldn't have got hurt at work out here, she hasn't even been working here a year; and I'm shaking my head, yeah, I have; and I looked at Linda Paley for her to verify that I had been there since 1990, and she just sat there and stared, Panhorst testified. Agreeing that when she returned to work after the carpal tunnel the type of work they had her doing had an effect on her nerves, Panhorst stated - you just had your hand operated on, knowing that it was going hopefully to do good, that you was rid of that pain, and they promised that I could go back to work and work on light duties filling bags. And then I don't even think it was four weeks that I was off; Dr. Susi wanted me to take off longer but I explained to him that Arville Koppelman had called me, and Dr. Susi already knew what they said to me about workmen's comp so he said since they were going to put me on light duty because I could knit or crochet, something light, I don't knit but that's what he explained to me, that filling bags, he would let me go back to work but not to do anything heavy, the claimant said. And you cannot refuse; whatever job they give you, you can't say I'm not going to do it, you do it, the claimant stated. This had an effect on my psychological condition, and that's aside from any physical problems that I was having, Panhorst agreed.
Before I injured my hand or thumb I did not have any problems doing the work that I had to do at Metalcraft, Panhorst said. In fact, when I started, I started out on nights and Jim Leakey would set up the machines real good, he was the set up man on nights and also he was my supervisor. There wasn't maybe half a dozen to a dozen people working on the second shift, so the poles was coming off pretty good; and when I started Melvin Duvall told me that if I wasn't a fast worker he wouldn't keep me, Panhorst stated. And I knew that I needed that job, so I went in there and gave it a hundred percent; and after the third day, the lady that does it too, part-time on the automatic, asked me if I was trying to get everybody to hate me out there. Agreeing that there was an instance where she was told or instructed to do a job in a certain way and then one of the supervisors came and told her to do it in a different way, Panhorst testified - "I was on a drilling machine and they was two sets on the drill and I was told that I could not drill on all but only on one; I had to drill on one and it don't drill by itself, you have to hold it, it will go down into the steel and you try not to get many burrs on it because they don't want many burrs on it. The next morning I was jumped because I didn't get as many out as the night shift." So I went to the machine to see and it was set on level 2. So I went back, you had to get the tool and dye guy down, Tom Duvall, and he said Joanie quit worrying about what people do on night shift, you was told to run it on one, run it on one. So I ran it on -- but the people on night shift got to run it on 2; they could go faster and leave more burrs on it, but I always ran it on one, Panhorst testified.
Panhorst stated that she is familiar with an individual by the name of Tony Branson at work, and explained that Branson was a forklifter who moved materials around. I never had any problem with him until one day, the claimant said. One day he was standing over by me to impress this girl, Tara, that was working with me, and when I reached down into the carton, it was pretty deep, and it was about twenty-five inches wide -- but, anyhow, he thought it was funny, he held my head down in there and I tried to get up a second time and he was laughing and holding me down harder. I tried to get up a third time and Tara could tell that I was hurting, so he let me up, and he was laughing, Panhorst said. I went on in the bathroom because it not only hurt my neck and back, it embarrassed me, she said, I was old enough to be his mother. Panhorst agreed that this embarrassment increased her anxiety.
The claimant agreed that someone at work used cuss words to her. It was a young girl in quality control, Panhorst stated, and I was doing exactly what the supervisor at the time told me to do, plus I'm chatting with manager, Arville Koppelman, and that was the way I was supposed to run; I said that quality control, John, said I'm not supposed to run like that, and he said - "I was the boss and I told you run them like that". So when quality control come by she said, "You better start listening to what I said."; and I said, "John said I should run", and she said "Well, fuck, John. You better start listening to Tom Duvall." But Tom Duvall wasn't my supervisor, I couldn't listen to him, he worked in tool and dye, the claimant stated. Panhorst was asked if this had had any affect on her psychologically. All the time, the claimant answered, the right hand never knew what the left hand was doing out there; one person'll tell you one thing, and the next person would tell you another thing, and then the first person would be brought in front of me and said how come you told her that, and they would say, "Well, I didn't tell her that." Panhorst was asked if she had seen or heard this happening to anyone else other than herself. Not that I can remember; I was so nervous and upset, I didn't watch anybody else, Panhorst answered.
Panhorst stated that she had had treatment for depression or psychological problems before she went to work for Metalcraft. In 1983, I think, I asked for XENIX, she said. And my oldest daughter just was going to graduate from high school, and the husband who she's married to today, they was going to get married and I knew how hard it was to start out right away; I wanted her to go to college at East Central, but you got to leave them make up their own mind, but it made me nervous, the claimant testified. She was asked about after 1983. My dad died in 1989 and that -- him and mom was married fifty something years, she responded. She was queried if she had gotten over any feelings about this before she started having problems with Metalcraft, and Panhorst answered that it was emotional but she had gotten over it. I had gotten over this before I went to work for Metalcraft, she said, then my mother died in April of 1991.
Panhorst agreed that she has seen various doctors for her psychiatric problems, including a Dr. Rao and a Dr. Paulk who is just a regular M.D. Panhorst agreed that, as reflected in Dr. Paulk's records, she had told the doctor that the situation at work got so bad she wished she was dead. The claimant agreed that she had requested of Dr. Paulk to be admitted to a stress unit in 1994. I didn't know what to do anymore, she explained, but I don't think I went in the hospital that time. But I knew that if I didn't get some psychological help with the things that was going on; I knew I was not going to make it, she stated. Dr. Paulk referred me to a psychiatrist, to Dr. Rao, Panhorst stated. I seen Dr. Rao I think through two years and a month or two, the claimant said.
Aside from the things I've already told you I really did not have any other problems with people at work, Panhorst stated. I mean, different things that was said, somebody would start up something, but I tried to always stay from any of that; I didn't want to get involved in any of that, "knife stabbing", she said. They would like hide parts on people, Panhorst said. And I just tried to stay to myself and do my job best of my ability, she said.
Panhorst agreed that she has been treated by Dr. Crane, Dr. Paulk, Dr. Fischer, Dr. Susi and by Dr. M. R. Jones. She agreed that most of these treatments were for physical problems that she had had, but some of them had to do with psychiatric treatment for her psychological problems. The claimant agreed that she saw Dr. Rao at St. John's Mercy back in 1997, and visited there from 1997 through March 30, 2000 seeing Dr. Rao and Dr. Ghosh. I saw Dr Jatala, too, the claimant said. She agreed that some of the doctors she saw for physical problems she also had complaints about her psychological problems that she was having. Panhorst agreed that she was sent by her attorney to Dr. Parwatikar for an examination, and to Dr. James Israel, a vocational expert.
Before I went to work at Metalcraft where I had these psychological problems I did not have any problems doing my activities of daily living, the claimant said. I ran a restaurant in 1989; I was always a hard worker; always worked, Panhorst stated.
Panhorst agreed that her present primary complain was with respect to her depression as a result of the way she was treated at Metalcraft. The claimant agreed that as to her medication, depending on what Medicare or Medicaid does, she would be having prescriptions for psychiatric medications and she would be asking the employer to be reimbursing them to her or to pay them directly as long as they're related to her psychiatric treatments by a psychiatrist.
Panhorst stated that as far as her physical injuries were concerned, she was aware that she did settle some claims for physical injuries, but as far as her depression is concerned she has (not) received any payments.
On cross-examination by the employer/insurer, Panhorst stated that when she worked at Metalcraft they said there were a little over a hundred people working there. She was asked if there had been people at the plant that she liked and trusted. Oh, yeah, there were people there that I liked, Panhorst answered. I really didn't dislike anybody, she said. Panhorst was asked if, overall, did she find the people at Metalcraft to be trustworthy and honest folks, and she responded - "No, sir". Out of a hundred people, I would say it was maybe fifteen or twenty that I didn't think were honest or trustworthy, Panhorst said. She was asked who were her top five people she didn't like, she didn't find to be honest and trustworthy at Metalcraft. Melvin Duvall, Chris Barker; Jo Ann Monday, David Door, David Yates, Panhorst answered. Melvin Duvall was my supervisor, she stated, he was a supervisor at Metalcraft. When asked if Duvall was a supervisor directly over a job she did or was he a tool and dye guy, Panhorst answered There was no plant manager at that time, so Duvall was the plant manager, supervisor. You reported to him in the morning, you didn't just go to your job; you had to report to him to find out what job he wanted you to do that day, the claimant said. Jo Ann Monday was assistant supervisor, Panhorst stated, she got Melvin's job right after he left. I don't remember how long I worked with her, the claimant stated, I think she was supervisor until -- I can remember her being off from work more than me in 1996, and she was supervisor till then. But when she come back she wanted her job back, but they didn't give it to her; she was demoted, Panhorst noted. Chris Barker was -- at one time they had building 1, building 2, a building 3, and then building 4, and he was over -- well, I think, they got rid of building 3, then he was over at that and then he went to building 4, Panhorst testified. David Door was my last supervisor on the night that I left, she said. David Yates was in ordering supplies, the claimant stated. When asked if Yates was a supervisor or just a co-worker, Panhorst answered - No, he wasn't a co-worker, he worked in the office; he ordered supplies, like if I needed sanding paper, he would be the one that would order it.
Panhorst was queried during cross examination if her testimony had been that before she went to Metalcraft things were pretty good. Yeah, except when my father died and my mother, she answered. I mean my marriage was fine; I just went to work at the restaurant, she stated. She was queried - Your husband was a good husband, you liked your husband; correct? I loved my husband, Panhorst responded. Agreeing that she had testified in one of her depositions that her husband was "her all", Panhorst further stated - And I never would have thought in a hundred years that he would have left me. Focusing on before Metalcraft,
Panhorst agreed that life was pretty good, she had nice kids, nice family, had a good husband, and she had a home that she was proud of. She agreed that her home was paid for, they owned it, then Panhorst further stated - "Until I went to work at -- open up a restaurant, then we had to mortgage it". She was queried - But that was another good thing; correct, because one of the things that you loved to do was you love to cook? I loved to cook and bake, yes, she answered. When queried, that restaurant, that was a dream for you, Panhorst responded - It was a life dream. She agreed that in one of her depositions she had indicated that she worked twelve, fourteen, fifteen hours a day at that restaurant. Not too long into my dream of owning the restaurant, my husband became ill; Panhorst agreed. His heart muscle was dying off, she said. Panhorst stated that her husband had only thirty-five percent of his heart muscle left, and if he quit work at that time he could live until retirement age, but he couldn't do much. So I had to sell the restaurant to -- but I loved him so much that his health and stuff was more important then, Panhorst said. She was queried - he couldn't quit until you got the mortgage off the house; right? He would not quit, Panhorst answered. She agreed that she sold the restaurant to get the mortgage off the house. Agreeing that left her in a position where her husband wasn't employed, and at that point she wasn't employed, Panhorst added that it was only for about a month, maybe two, then she went to work at Metalcraft. The claimant was asked if she had gone out and found a job at Metalcraft because she needed to work to help her husband. My husband found me the job, she responded. She was queried - You needed to work not only for your husband, but also for yourself, you all needed the medical benefits; correct? They wouldn't put him on their insurance because of his previous medical condition, but least I had insurance, she answered. He did not eventually come on to their insurance, Panhorst said, they wouldn't let him. As far as I know and can remember he was never on the health insurance. Panhorst admitted that this could be something that she was mistaken about. But I don't think so, she said. Panhorst was queried - If the 08/01/97 records of Dr. Crane, which is Exhibit K, indicate that you felt you needed a job for health insurance for both yourself and your husband, at that point that would be inconsistent with your recollection? My mental state wasn't that good, she answered, if I said for me and my husband that was wrong, it was just for me. My husband was already on social security disability and Medicare or Medicaid, I don't know which one it was; he was accepted on Medicaid or Medicare I think in '89 or '90; I can't remember which, she stated.
Panhorst testified that it would not be a fair statement that working in the factory was not something that she liked. Dr. Jatala wrote that down, she said, out of all the doctors that I seen, he was the only one that wrote that and that's not what I said. The claimant was asked what did she tell Dr. Jatala, and she answered:
"As much -- well Dr. Rao would always take a good half an hour with me and listen. When Dr. Jatala -- that's why I didn't go to him very often. I finally called the social worker and said Dr. Jatala is writing down stuff, he's not listening to me, instead of taking a half an hour with me, he's only taking fifteen minutes. He's taking like four people, because one day the one lady said he's running late, my appointment's at two-fifteen, and another lady said your appointment is at twofifteen, it was already two-fifteen, and a lady had just went in, and another one said your appointment is at two-fifteen, mine's at two-thirty, and I said yours is at two-thirty, another one said mine is a quarter to three, another lady said mine's at three. So that day we decided all four of us was supposed to go in and see him. When we went in he was already writing down the medication stuff while I was trying to talk to him. Four people that one day that I went in had the others after that. I didn't stay with him very long because he wrote - "not happy with job", I said it's not the job, I don't mind doing any of the jobs there. And, in fact, if I was able to do them today there would not be one job I mind me doing, it was not the job, it was how I was treated."
Dr. Jatala, a psychiatrist -- I only went to him -- Dr. Rao, I went to him for over two years and a month; Dr. Jatala, I might have went to him six, eight months, but that was all; I couldn't talk to him, he didn't want to listen, Panhorst said. Dr. Jatala said don't tell them at work what medication you're on, they don't need to know that, she stated. A 3-27-96 entry was noted -- "I never liked to work in a factory, I have no choice." - and Panhorst was asked if Dr. Jatala made that up. Yes, he took it out of context, she answered, I might have said I don't mind the work but some of the people out there. Out of all the psychiatrists that I've seen, and there's been quite a few, not another one has ever said that I hated that job, Panhorst stated. She was reminded of her testimony at her last deposition taken on 6-26-03, on page 61:
Question: "Now that first time, I'm just reading someone else's notes, so you know how those doctors write?" Answer: "Yeah. It appears to say not happy at work; is that correct? Is that what you read it to be." Answer: "Not happy at work." Question: "Do you recall telling a mental health care provider in March, 1996 that you were not happy at work?" Answer: "More than likely I was not happy at work."
I was not happy at work, Panhorst stated at the hearing. No, I wasn't happy at work, they was driving me insane, the claimant stated. She was queried - So if Dr. Biddy was asked in his deposition on 6-8-05, page 30, question: "Okay. And she was unhappy with having to do factory work and unhappy with the pressure of being the sole provider in the household?" He responded, answer: "She has talked of that many times. " That would also be inconsistent with what you recall? That's not the way I said it, Panhorst responded. Panhorst stated that she disagreed with some parts of Dr. Biddy's testimony. When asked if she disagreed with the part where Dr. Biddy says she talked to him many times about being unhappy having to do factory work, Panhorst responded No, I was unhappy with the things that went on at the factory. I was unhappy with the way things went on at the factory, I was not unhappy with the factory work; you can ask anybody at the factory, I was a good worker, Panhorst stated. She admitted that at the beginning, she was unhappy with the stress of being the sole provider for the family. I did not feel like I was stuck at Metalcraft, Panhorst stated, I felt like I could leave Metalcraft at any time, but with the injuries I received and the state of mind I was always in, I was scared to leave because I did not know what else I could find. I didn't mind doing the work out there, I just wanted them to
leave me alone, the claimant stated. I was happy from the time I started working at Metalcraft with the jobs I was doing, Panhorst stated, I never complained about any job I was doing. What I complained about is the harassment and how I was treated out there after I had injuries, she said. She was asked, and the harassment came about after you had injuries, and Panhorst responded - And I tried to find different jobs but with all the things that I had wrong with me, I couldn't find different employment. The injuries I'm talking about, Panhorst said, is when I had my right hand operated on and they threw such a fit claiming that I didn't deserve workmen's comp because I had only worked there a year, and I had worked there since 1990. Panhorst agreed that the filing of the claim and the pain that she had as a result of the problems with the right hand, those all kind of came together and caused her anxiety and depression. But I was scared to say anything, she added, I had mentioned it to my supervisor, Melvin Duvall, and he told me to get used to the pain because Tom was making all the dyes harder to pull off and pull on; but that wasn't true. After I worked on that machine for the third day, a girl that was working on automatic did the same job I did, only mine was manual; she told me to work on her machine, I said, "Dorothy if I do, if Melvin sees me, he'll fire me", the claimant testified.
During cross examination, Panhorst was asked if prior to 1994 had she ever been diagnosed with anxiety or depression. I told you in 1983, and again, my dad died in 1989, I think it was '89, I'm not sure, but my mother died in April of 1991, she answered. Other than in 1983 and 1989 there were no other times I was diagnosed or treated for anxiety or depression, Panhorst said. I had three major surgeries in one year, and I thought I was -- before that I thought there was something wrong but come to find out I had a gall bladder that was full of stones; so I wasn't -- it wasn't in my head, I was definitely sick, and then also a month after they did gall bladder surgery, then they also did partial hysterectomy, and then November or December of that same year then I had to have a complete hysterectomy, the claimant testified.
The claimant agreed, during cross examination, that her right wrist had been operated on and those medical bills were paid for by Metalcraft, and that she was off work for four weeks after that surgery, and she got paid for that time off. Panhorst was asked if she was written up as a result of that injury. Not that I know of, she answered. She was asked if her pay had been cut as a result of that injury. I didn't get a pay raise after that; I think they come around and gave me two cents, Panhorst responded. I can't remember everything straight, she added. Agreeing that she settled her carpal tunnel claim, Panhorst added that this was without an attorney. She agreed that after she settled that case she continued to work at Metalcraft. Panhorst was asked if after she got the settlement check did anybody at Metalcraft write her up. She answered: "Sir, I asked for my personnel records to see if I was wrote up and I was denied. The only thing I got out of my personnel records when Linda Poehle mailed it to me was my absentee slips, and I know I had told her on different times about different things, and none of that was in my personnel files when she mailed them to me."
During cross examination, Panhorst was asked if she ever felt like she fit in at Metalcraft, and she answered - Yes. When queried if she had told Dr. Crane that she didn't fit in at Metalcraft, Panhorst responded - Around certain people, yes, I didn't feel like I fit in around certain people at Metalcraft. The claimant further testified:
"Roland Thompson, I felt good around Alice Parr, she always was the one after I had my hand operated on, always told me to watch my back because they was trying to find a way to get rid of me. Shirley Helmers, I got along with, yet to this day I see her. I don't know; they got a bunch of new workers out there now, trying to think back on some of the other ones. Roland Thompson still works out there, and he told his sister that they did me wrong. Leon Barr, I see him; Harris Feaserman. No, I did not fit in with some of the people out there."
So, she agreed, she fit in with eighty-five of those people, that there were only fifteen of them that she didn't feel comfortable with. The claimant was asked why the notes of Dr. Crane from about 12-3-96 indicated that she had advised the doctor that she was harassed because she wouldn't lie, cheat, steal, and gossip. Tom Duvall, Jo Ann Monday and David Yates, they would gossip, and I didn't want to listen to it, Panhorst stated, I didn't want to talk about anybody, all I wanted to do was my job to the best of my ability. She stated there was some feeling in a factory that if you didn't go along with the lies, cheating, stealing, and willingness to have sexual affairs, you just didn't belong. I mean, I didn't pay any attention to it, Panhorst testified, different ones would say something to me, and I'd keep my mouth shut because I did not want to get involved in it. One night leaving work a guy stuck a piece of toilet paper, a roll of toilet paper, under his arm and walked out with it." She was asked if that man had harassed her for not doing the same thing. No, Panhorst answered, because he knew that I wouldn't say nothing, and do nothing. I just wanted to do my job to the best of my ability, pick up my paycheck and go home, she said. It was noted that Panhorst had testified on direct examination that when she first started she came in and she wanted to do her job and wanted to work hard, and did work hard, and as a result of that, people thought she was showing off or showboating. Yeah, they did, the claimant answered. She further testified:
"One lady -- I shouldn't say everybody; no, no, no, just the one lady. She had worked on that machine for thirteen years, Marlene Coshow, and Dorothy Leakey told me that I better slow down because I did twice as many as she did on nights as she did on days, and you could tell it pissed her off because at lunchtime or break time or something she would try to come around and look at my counter to see how many I had done, if I wouldn't click it off before I left work."
It was noted that in her depositions Panhorst used the term on more than one occasion "the wannabes"; she was asked who were the wannabes. I don't remember, Panhorst responded, oh, Tim Duvall's wife at the time, they're now divorced. She was asked to define a "wannabe" in the context of Metalcraft. Panhorst answered: "Somebody that wants to be a supervisor and is not, one that
wants to tell you to do one job and they don't have any business of telling you to do that job, but also if you don't do that job the way they want it, then they will say well, you're supposed to do that job, and then when you go get the supervisor and come back, that wannabe will say oh, no, I didn't say anything like that to her." When asked if the wannabes were her main tormentors, Panhorst responded - I stayed clear of them, sir. It was noted that in her 4-25-00 deposition, page 88, the following question and answer occurred: "Okay. In your sense, I mean did -- who was the main tormentor, in your opinion, of you can you single out someone to say that this person was really the person behind it or the person giving you the most abuse?" The answer was: "No, wannabes." She was again asked, at the hearing, if the wannabes were her main tormentors. That was 2000 and this is 2005, Panhorst answered, and I went through a lot of therapy to try to forget this stuff. I don't remember, she said. Panhorst stated that she liked Chester Nichols. When I first started working out there, I told them, Chester and I were just like that [indicating]. And he absolutely had a fit when he found out, Panhorst testified, he said - you don't tell them that. But I just did it so people would leave me alone, she stated, thinking that Chester and I were like that [indicating]. Panhorst further testified: "I didn't mind Chester. I tell you one time we was at a meeting and he said I did some parts wrong. And I said, 'well, I hope you don't take me off that job because I would like to prove to you that I can do the job right, and that you would know that I was working hard and I would know that you liked me'. He said, 'that will never happen', and everybody laughed." Panhorst was queried - So you didn't like Chester or you did like Chester? She answered: "He was a moody person. I tried -- when I seen him I would say hi Chester, or I didn't see him that much. But he would come out on the floor sometimes where I was working and stand there and watch me. I can't remember if I -- I didn't like the way he treated me, I didn't like the way he lied, but to say that I disliked the man, that I hated him, no." Panhorst agreed that at one point Arville had told her that Chester had told Arville that she was okay, she was a good worker, she was a fast worker, and she was a dedicated worker. This was when I wanted a pay raise one time, she added. Panhorst further testified:
"I wanted a pay raise and Melvin Duvall said I didn't deserve one, so I went to Arville. He said, 'Chester always talked good about you'. I had to cater Chester Nichols' sister's wedding party in St. Louis, and I said -- Melvin Duvall said that if I wasn't at work that Saturday that I was automatically terminated. And I said, 'Arville, I got to do that reception because of who it is for.' And he said, 'I agree with Melvin, if you're not here Saturday like you're supposed to be, that's terms for termination'. And I said, 'but it's who it's for, I got to do it'. And finally after three or four times of me saying that, he said well, 'Joanie, who is it for', and I said, 'Chester Nichols' niece, his sister, Charlotte's daughter', and he said, 'oh, Chester always talked good about you. I'm sure if Melvin says no again, go back to Chester'. And so I went and talked to Chester, and I had asked Chester while I was in there, 'just one more thing I wanted to ask you', and he said, 'what is it', and he said I could do the wedding, that he would take care of it. And -- now that's the way things went on out there; one would tell you one thing, then the other one would tell you one thing. Anyhow, I said, 'there's one more thing I want to ask you, Chester, I was supposed to get a pay raise and Melvin said that you -- that I didn't deserve one', and I told him that. He said did you say -- he said, 'did he say why'. I said, 'yes, he said that you said I didn't deserve one and I want to know why'. Chester he said he didn't say that."
Panhorst agreed, during cross examination that at some point she started keeping a log while she was working at Metalcraft. She testified:
"About three or four months after I started working out there, Shirley Helmers did a job and she was also in charge of quality control, and every night she took a piece of paper, a carbon copy, and another piece of paper and wrote down everything she did. In fact, Melvin Duvall was -- made fun of it because sometimes her paper would be full then she would start writing around the edges of it. And in the mornings one of the people that was always in his office, said he laughed and threw it in the waste can. But Shirley, her copy, she told me that whatever year she started out there, she had a carbon copy of it, because she said, Joanie, sometimes when a bad part is done, if you don't keep track of that part and the day you did it and the box number that you put it in, and when you have it taped up and ready to ship, you have to sign it, so you make sure if two people packed in that, you make sure you write that down. So that first book I kept from probably May until November I'd lost, I forgot it at work and left on the table, but nobody seen it, I never did get it back. So I started keeping what job I was on that day, what time I started it, what my rate was, what a lot number I was on, what was -- there was code numbers on the paperwork also that you had to write down, and how long you were on that job, and if you went to a different job, then I would start on; that's what the log book was about, of what all I did. And when my hand hurt I would make sure I write that down. But other than that. There was a lot talk about my log book, but -"
She was asked if the nature of her log book changed with time, and Panhorst answered: "I had logged in numbers until I went to Dr. Jatala, and he said don't do no more log book because you don't need to keep track of that, and then you worry about if you make your rate or you don't make your rate and so it was after then that I didn't keep a log book after that." Not during that time did I do anything in addition to just tracking rate and lot numbers, the claimant stated. But sometimes I would go home, and I have a desk right as you walk in the door, and I would write down things on that, she added. Panhorst stated that she did not remember what kind of things she would write down then. It was noted that she had started taking notes in a logbook in January of 1994. I took notes all the time, Panhorst responded. Stating that she remembered having her deposition taken and producing some notes at that deposition, Panhorst further testified:
"Yeah, that's what I told you, that I did that when I got home, I wrote them down in my log book. It was mainly like I told you, what time I started, what the date, what the rate was that day, what the number of the work order I was on,
if I shipped out a box and had my initials on it or if I shipped out a box, I would put shipped out box number and put the number, and I would just put J. P., but if somebody else helped me, then I would put C. K. or something, you know, whoever helped me."
Panhorst's deposition testimony was noted: Question: "Why did you first start taking notes in January of 1994?" Answer: "Because my arm was giving me so much pain and I was getting harassed like for saying anything about my arm, and I wanted to make sure that I had them wrote down so Dr. Rao would know what I was talking about." When asked if that sounded correct, Panhorst responded - "Not my notebook -- not my logbook, I wrote it down in a notebook." She was asked if the notebook was different from the log book. Panhorst answered:
"I kept a log book on my work bag that was just for work. If I had other things that I wanted to talk to Dr. Rao about or Dr. Jatala about or the case worker, I would jot down, and then by the telephone I would have, when I went in like if on, let's say, with -- I would abbreviate a lot of their names, like Kenny Coshow rubbed up against me and made a sly remark, which that's what he did."
Panhorst stated that it was her testimony that having her hand operated on did not cause her to be anxious and depressed, but they didn't want me to file workmen's comp and I felt harassed and that caused me a lot of psychiatric pain.
The claimant agreed, during cross examination that at sometime in 1996 she settled her work comp case on the right wrist. I don't think it was in that same time frame that I started having some problems with my other hand or my left arm, Panhorst stated. When queried - Wasn't it about the time you settled, not the same time that you developed problems in the right, Panhorst responded - "I don't think so". I think it was in 1996 when I developed problems in the left upper extremity, she testified, it was when I was working on the -- I had my hand operated on, I think it was February of '96 on the small belt sander. Panhorst further testified:
"And on the belt sander, I had tried to tell them for over a year that they had ordered the wrong sandpaper, it was leaving too big a marks in the pole, and it wasn't good for the poles. And David Yates come downstairs and said, "what kind of shit are you trying to start now". And I said I had talked to Gerald Starkey first and he come back and said, "Joanie, that's the same sandpaper that David Yates has been ordering for the last year". And I said, "duh". So then he sent David Yates down and David Yates said, "don't tell me that that's the wrong sandpaper, that's the sandpaper that I ordered for the last year". And I knew not to say anything to David Yates because he gets so irate, so mad. So I went into maintenance, I thought the maintenance man would know what kind of sandpaper should be used on that pole, so asked him to come over to the belt sander, and I asked him would he check, took a piece of the sandpaper and went back to some book, and he come back and said, "oh, Joanie, you got the wrong sandpaper on this". I said, "duh". I said I tried to tell Gerald Starkey and he wanted David Yates, and David Yates said it was the right sandpaper, so then she went over and got -- he went and got Jo Ann Monday, at the time she was the supervisor, and that's how that got straightened out."
Panhorst agreed that before she left Metalcraft she was having problems with the left arm, left arm and neck. Stating that the pain problems that she had with the left arm and neck did not make her anxiety or depression worse, Panhorst further testified - "What made the pain worse was scared of saying anything and worrying about it because if you said anything that hurt you, when I had the right hand, they would put you on a machine that would make you hurt for days at a time." Panhorst agreed that by the time she left Metalcraft she had problems with the right hand, the left arm and her neck, and she was having the anxiety and the depression.
During cross examination, Panhorst agreed that Rosie Swaller was a friend of hers. Rosie Swaller started working out there on nights when I worked, and she was a friend, Panhorst stated. Agreeing that she had had a confrontation with Rosie, Panhorst testified:
"Bill Swaller, her husband, his grandma and my dad were sister and brother, so his mom and I were first cousins, so Bill and I second cousins. Did I have a confrontation with her? She was on a real hard job, I can't remember the name of it, and that week I got to do an easy job of putting stickers on poles and she kept calling me the sticker lady, I mean she wasn't nice about it, you could tell she was mad, and she had a hard job, I can see where she would be aggravated, I mean, looking right across and can see me just putting stickers on and she's doing heavy lifting. But as far as until that time, I brought food out there, Rosie ate it, they ate cupcakes and cookies, she liked watermelon and cantaloupe and bananas together, and I liked that, so I would always bring enough for her. We got along until that last week in -- or maybe the second week in July, I can't remember the date, but she got real upset. And I told Bill, I said, "Bill" -- I thought I went to her husband and said, "Bill, I don't know what Rosie -- what's going on, I know she's got a heavy job, but please, please tell her to leave me alone or I'm going to have to report her to the supervisor". And that did it. The next day I went in, I knew her car was out there earlier because it was on a Thursday and I went out to pick up my paycheck and they were already out there, so I knew there was something going on, and that night that I got -- think it was a level 2, I never was wrote up on a level 1, but they come with the level 2 and one more level and I would be terminated, and -- but nothing was wrote down on that piece of paper except the initials AK and Dave Door wanted me to sign it, and he was supposed to write his statement, I wasn't going to sign a blank piece of paper."
Panhorst was further queried - So you had some kind of altercation with Rosie, and after that you were written up or they attempted to write you up? She answered:
"Well, I didn’t ever say anything to Rosie because she was working hard, but I went to her husband, Bill, and Bill and I got along, we were second cousins, I knew him since baby on, so I went and told him, I said, "Bill, please get Rosie to stop harassing me". I said, "I don’t have nothing to do with picking the jobs". I said, "if she doesn’t I'm going to have to tell the supervisor". And that’s what I said, and the next day they went out and because Rosie knew that if I went to the supervisor, the supervisor would believe me.
"That night Dave Door wanted me to sign that blank piece of paper, and he wasn't going to let me leave work until I signed it. I said, 'Dave, I ain't going to sign that paper until you write down what you want'. And I went on home with the piece of paper, he didn't try to stop me. He said he hated to do what he had to do. And I went on back out to the factory a little bit later, I was a nervous wreck, and Alice Parr said, "I told you to watch your back, they're trying to find a way to get rid of you". And I said 'why, I didn't do nothing wrong'. And she said it had to do with what I said to Bill. I said, 'I didn’t say anything wrong to Bill, Rosie had said stuff to me worse than whatever I said to Bill'. But that I would tell the supervisor and -"
Panhorst was asked how long after the conversations with Bill and Rosie did she end up in the hospital. She answered:
"The next morning. I didn’t go to sleep all night. I kept trying to call Alice Parr at home because she would have known what was being said out there, and I couldn’t get nobody. She wasn’t home from work yet.
"I just didn’t know what I was going to do. I don’t know. I went down to the river. I needed that job and I worked hard. And I got down there, and I was going to drive into the river. And then all I could think of was my three kids, they wouldn't understand why I didn't want to live anymore. The paper that Dave Door give me that night, it was not signed by him and it had no statement on it, but the one that he turned in to his lawyer, it was completely filled out, but I had no signature of mine on it because he said I refused to sign it, but luckily I took the original one home with me.
Agreeing that she did not return to Metalcraft after this hospitalization, Panhorst testified:
"No, I was in the hospital until August 4th, and then I went home and went to Dr. Crane’s office, and then went to Mary Bredenberg, my hands shook so bad, I couldn’t hold a glass of water, as I had it with two hands and a straw. Anyhow, Dr. Crane didn’t want me to go back yet then because I worked with machinery on the job, and he thought my shaking would be too bad, but I would have went back. And, in fact, the day that I got a letter on August 7th saying if I wasn't back by the 11th of August of '97 that I was automatic terminated. But I went to Dr. Crane that day and asked him and he said no, not yet. So my husband took a letter out to the workplace, and they terminated me anyhow, even with a doctor's excuse, saying that I wasn't capable of working because of my hands shaking so bad that he didn't think that I could handle operating the drill or punch unit or roll bender or anything else I did out there."
Panhorst agreed she was upset that she was terminated from Metalcraft. She was asked - once you got away from Metalcraft did your anxiety and your depression get better or worse or stay the same. It never did get better, she answered. Days when I don't have to think about this or Metalcraft or seeing somebody, I'm better, she said.
Panhorst stated, during cross examination, that she would disagree with Dr. Parwatikar if Dr.. Parwatikar had testified that she had some marital problems from 1989 to 1991. She stated that she would disagree with Dr. Rao's comments if the records of Dr. Rao indicated that there was a lot of stress in her home and that her home was unstable. Panhorst further stated: "It was unstable because of me. Not because of my husband." The claimant agreed that her husband has dated since the divorce. When asked if this had created any stress for her, Panhorst answered: "The first two years after he left I was not in good shape. But I have -- I have accepted it now." Panhorst denied that at one point the police had to get involved because of problems she was having with her husband and/or his girlfriend. Panhorst further stated:
"Her boyfriend was a cop. And she had said that she was happy to find a boyfriend that didn't drink. And I called and told her that she should have been married to him when he was in his twenties. He drank then. But, no. That -- I never was ever wrote up in a summons or handed a paper saying I was in trouble."
Panhorst was queried - Did her boyfriend, the policeman, ever come out to your house and ask you to leave them alone? She answered:
"Yeah. He -- that's what I said. That he -- he come out to the house. But it was her boyfriend not the City of New Haven. In fact, I don't live in the City of New Haven.
He didn't -- really didn't have any jurisdiction coming out there. I live in Franklin -- out of the city limits. He really didn't have rights to come out there. But I listened to him and that was fine. I wasn't -- I mean, I never did hate her or upset with her. But -"
Panhorst agreed that prior to August of 1997 the company had never written her up for any disciplinary actions or indicated that her job was in jeopardy in writing; that she was not written up by the company until August of 1997, and at that point she ended up being terminated. Panhorst further stated "But when they wrote that up they wrote me up on a level -- they didn't write me up on a Level 1. They wrote me either up on a Level 2 or 3. And if -- where was Level 1 at? They'd never wrote me up on Level 1. So why would they -" Panhorst then stated that they really didn't write her up. She was queried - Well, they tried to write you up at that point? The only thing that was on that piece of paper was A.K., she answered, there was nothing else wrote on that paper. Panhorst was asked if at that point she felt that she was capable of working, wasn't she in fact working. "I was working that night", she answered. Panhorst agreed it was her intention to come back to work the next day. She was queried - And then when you were terminated from there and you left there you went to unemployment and you filed for unemployment; correct? Panhorst answered:
"That night I went back out to the factory. After I got the letter. And showed about half a dozen people that -- and nothing was wrote on that paper. And Alice Power said, "Joanie, I told you they were trying to find a way to get rid of you." And I left there and drove around for a while. And they knew they was trying to get rid of me. And so I drove downtown to the river. And there was a ramp there. And I wanted to drive in. My husband was still with me at that time. But I had three kids. And if I drove in they wouldn't have known why. Because that paper didn't have anything on it. So I sat there for a long time. Trying to think what I was gonna do. So then I went on home. And called my oldest daughter and asked her to come in and sit with me. Because I felt like I wanted to just end it all."
Panhorst agreed, during cross examination, that after she was terminated from Metalcraft she applied for unemployment benefits and received them. She stated that she really did not feel she could work. Panhorst was queried - if you felt you couldn't work why would you file a lawsuit -- or attempt to file a legal action indicating that they wrongfully terminated you from the plant? She answered: "Because they did. They wrongful terminated me from the plant. How else would you put it?" The claimant was asked if she had had any resentment or anger about her termination, and she answered - "I was hurting so bad by the end of '96. I did resent the place. But not the job." She was asked if that termination in and of itself was stressful. Panhorst answered: "The pain itself was stressful. And the termination was horrible. Because I wanted that job. I had health benefits."
During cross examination, the claimant was asked if Dr. Radel, Dr. Ghosh or any of the physicians she'd seen back in the 1970's, 1980's or 1990's had prescribed any Xanax or Valium, or any drugs like that to her knowledge. In the1980's they did, Panhorst answered. She further testified:
" My mother only had one child in the hospital. Was my youngest brother. She's never had a nerve problem. Never seen a psychiatrist. Never -- never had any problems with her nerves. But in 1980 she was diagnosed with cancer. They had to take out so much of her colon. At the Deaconess Hospital. And back then they didn't test the blood. And she got Hepatitis. And end up dying in '91 over it. So I could have took nerve pills. Plus my young -- oldest daughter just got out of high school and wanted to get married. And I wanted her to go to college. But I end up letting her have her way. But yeah, probably in '80 I probably took Xanax or something with my mom. But she had never ever had a nerve problem. Never ever went to a psychiatrist. She was a strong-willed lady that -"
Panhorst was queried - With that being the case do you know why Dr. Biddy would have testified that you had advised him your mother did have psychiatric issues? " I never said that", Panhorst responded. My mother had migraine headaches when she went through the change of life, but she never had psychiatric help, she stated. The claimant was asked if she had any other family history of psychiatric issues. She testified:
"It said in Dr. Biddy's -- that my grandfather committed suicide. Neither one of them committed suicide. I don't know where that come from either. The woman that admitted me at the hospital that day was taking care of three other people. And she would let me sit and wait for a while and then come back. I wouldn't have said my grandfather committed suicide because he didn't. They both died of natural causes."
When queried if she didn't know where Dr. Biddy got that history, Panhorst responded - "You mentioned it to Dr. Biddy. He didn't mention it". She was further queried - And if the records of Dr. Biddy from May 4, 1999 indicate that you provided him with a history of grandfather committing suicide and cutting his throat you don't know where he got that from either? "No", Panhorst answered. The claimant was queried - So if the records of Dr. Biddy of 5/4/99 indicate that you had thoughts of cutting your throat you'd also disagree with that comment? Panhorst stated that she would disagree, that she never thought about cutting her throat. She was questioned about her 4/25/2000 testimony, page 85 , that she had mentioned in the record that her grandfather had committed suicide. Panhorst responded that she did not know. It was noted that she had testified at her deposition - "I don't know if it's a fact but we were always told that. But we wasn't allowed to talk about it so I don't know if he really did it or if he really didn't." Panhorst testified at the hearing: "I don't -- I done checked since then and neither grandfather committed suicide"; "Don't know where it come from"; "And I have checked now and both of them died of natural causes". Panhorst stated that she checked after seeing Dr. Biddy's deposition, that she asked family members. When asked if her daughter has any psychiatric issues, Panhorst responded - "Yes, she really does now. Ever since 1994." Panhorst stated that she did not know if either of her sisters had ever been diagnosed with depression. It was noted that the records of Dr. Rao of 2/25/96 indicated a history of Panhorst's sister having depression; when asked, you don't know where the doctor would have got that from, Panhorst responded: "No. Unless it was when
mom was sick. And got Hepatitis. I think we was all a mess then. But my sister did -- young -- old -- middle sister didn't live here then. But we was all pretty upset." She was asked if she has any aunts or uncles that have any psychiatric histories. "No, not really", Panhorst answered. She was queried - If the records of Dr. Biddy indicate on his intake sheet when he first saw you that you had advised him you had an aunt who'd gone through electro-convulsive therapy for depression you don't have any recollection as to how he would have gotten that history? Panhorst responded: "My one aunt -- my one aunt on my dad's side, I don't think -she didn't -- she wasn't a invalid but she was slow. So maybe that's where that come from."
Panhorst was queried - Do you believe Metalcraft would have harassed you had you not had the injury to your arm? She responded: "Well, they got rid of somebody else over it. They got rid of somebody else over workman's comp." She was asked again - had you not hurt your arm, do you feel you would have been harassed by Metalcraft? Panhorst answered: "I was already harassed by Metalcraft. By the pain in my arm." The claimant was asked - Would Metalcraft have treated you the way they treated you, in your opinion, had you not had pain complaints in your arm? Panhorst answered: "I don't have no opinion. I have no idea."
On redirect examination, Panhorst was asked about her testimony on cross examination about ordering supplies, about sanding paper. The claimant explained that the poles she used the sandpaper on sometimes would have holes and you had to take and make that hole where it had no burrs on it. But you don't want to scratch up the pole, she stated, because that sand paper if it scratches too much then sometimes, if it's plated, it will show up, or if it's painted gray it will show up; so your sand paper, it's really necessary to use the right sand paper. The claimant agreed that these poles are used for chairs, for sweepers, and on twowheelers. We put the spring button in and everything, Panhorst added. Agreeing that the work that she did was hand intensive, Panhorst testified:
"Yeah. But I kept telling them about the sand paper. But nobody would listen.
"And, I mean, I went to Joe Starkey. He was the man that picked up the work and set the work. And he's -- at one point he said: 'Joanie, that's the same sand paper that he's been ordering for at least the last six months.' And I just couldn't get nobody to listen. So I -- I really washed my hands and how I did it. Barely, you know --"
It was noted, on redirect, that Panhorst had testified that she loved her husband. She was asked to describe their relationship up until the time she suffered these injuries, and Panhorst testified:
"Well, we went out to eat. We never argued. That was one of the things the kids were so surprised about. That I had to go to Dr. Ghosh because my arm and shoulder was hurting me so bad. And he put some kind of shots in my neck. And he said that it -- if it wasn't better in 42 or 72 hours to come back and he would put some more in. That was on a Friday. And that Saturday -- that Saturday all day my arms just still killed me. And (Rick, my husband) said: 'Joan, I thought the doctor said you would feel better in 24 hours.'
"My husband. He got aggravated that I hurt all the time from Metalcraft. And he -- I know he got tired of hearing about it. Anyhow, when he said that I said: 'Rich, why would you talk to me like that? I would never talk to you like that.' That was on a Saturday and by that Monday he was gone."
It was noted that there was some testimony as to what Dr. Jatala wrote down in his records and that Panhorst had testified that she didn't agree with what the doctor had written down about her job; Panhorst was queried if she would say that it was her job that aggravated her or the way she was treated on the job. Panhorst answered: "I never minded any job. Even if it hurt me. It was the way I was treated and penalized if I said something about that hurting my arm. Or if the machine wasn't set up right. They could set a machine up that it wouldn't run right. And that happened. Several times too."
Panhorst was asked, during redirect examination, if she felt she was treated differently than other people at Metalcraft. She answered:
"Once I filed the workman's comp claim I was. Yes. After I had my finger cut and didn't miss work or file a workman's comp; no, I wasn't then. In fact, that day that happened they called Chester Nichols and Connie Loudly (phonetically) was the president. And Melvin Duvall. And Jim Leekey (phonetically) was the setup man, and myself. And before they even took me to the doctor they to have the stitches put in this finger (Indicating) Chester Nichols told me that -- he said: 'We ought to dismiss you for not - on working on that machine without a safety guard.' And I said: 'How long have I been working there?' Was over a year. And I don't know how many months, maybe five months. And I looked at Jim Leekey and I asked him, I said: 'Jim, I never did see a safety guard for this machine. Where's the safety guard at? And he said: 'There was never a safety guard on that machine.' So that kind of bothered me that Chester would be that willing to terminate me when I -- there wasn't even a safety guard for that machine. But they didn't really give me any trouble until the end of '94. And I didn't mind working out there at all. It kind of bothered me the way they treated me over the -having my hand operated. And then I started in 1990. And then Chester said I hadn't even -- end of '94 said I hadn't even worked there a year. But it really didn't bother me until 1996. That's -"
Panhorst agreed that there were generally periodic pay raises given at Metalcraft, and that she received a two cent pay raise. Stating
that that was not the same pay raise that everybody else got, Panhorst further testified that Joann Monday, who at that time was not the plant supervisor but she was who I had to report to, "said that she had to keep me above the rest. But that I only got two -- two percent or two cents pay raise. I didn't say anything, I was just glad to have a job." Panhorst agreed that Monday had indicated that other people had gotten a larger pay raise. She further testified: "I was told. Some got a quarter and some got 50 cents. And I think a couple of them got 75 ." Panhorst stated that she did not receive the Christmas bonus that was generally given, and explained:
"I -- they said that -- a Christmas bonus was paid to you regardless. But since I missed at Christmas - I knew my Christmas pay -- holiday pays wouldn't be paid. But your Christmas bonus is what you do from January 1 until the end of December. And several people out there kept telling me I would get my Christmas bonus. But since I missed -- had a breakdown in ' 96 and I was off from, I think, November the 22nd or 26th until the first of the year. He kept my thousand dollar Christmas bonus."
First stating that she did not know if this happened to other people, Panhorst then testified about a situation involving Joann Monday, the supervisor at the time, with respect to the Christmas bonus: "(Monday) left the factory and she was off more that year than I was and she got her Christmas bonus." Panhorst agreed that when she was being harassed about her wrists there was some mention of a gentleman named Kenny Cushell. Kenny Cushell was the head man in maintenance department, she stated. Panhorst further testified:
"He always liked to rub up against a person. And he did it several times to me. And I tried to ignore him. And this one particular time he had this X -rated magazine with this woman in a bathing suit. Only it was made out of like fishnet or wiring. And he wanted to know if I would model that for him. And I said: 'I don't think there's enough fishnet that would cover me. And, no, I would not model it for him.'"
It was noted that there was some mention in the records of Panhorst hating her job or hating Metalcraft, and she was asked if this was a correct statement from her. Panhorst responded: "Not until 1996. I despised the place. But not until 1996 when they put me through so much. And probably if I lived to be a hundred I would say the same thing. It was horrible." Panhorst stated that the " f " word was used at Metalcraft all the time. She further stated: "And I was told by John Penny, at the time was the supervisor, right before I left, that that word was okay to use in a factory. It was used in all factories." She was asked if this was after she had complained about the use of that word, and Panhorst responded: "Yeah, I didn't -- well, a lot of women didn't like that word. I mean -- they would say F-you. You know, just -- I didn't like it."
During redirect, Panhorst was asked about some records of Dr. Rao which stated that there was a lot of stress in her home, that her home was unstable, and that she had indicated that was because of her condition. Panhorst responded: "Yes. Mainly after '94. Like I said, that year I laid on the couch. And I mean I -- it hurt. It really hurt. My hand -- the pain ran up in through here (Indicating). And I never did think carpal tunnel did that. But -" She agreed that it went up to her elbow. Panhorst further stated: "And this one when that started it didn't act like this one (Indicating). But -- I had to have both operated on."
Panhorst agreed, during recross examination, that she had testified that concerning the two cent raise, Joann Monday had told her the two cents kept you above the rest. She was queried - So after you got a two cent raise you were making more than your coworkers? Panhorst answered: "As far as I know. That's all she said." She further testified: "Everybody was real hush hush about what they got pay raised. Or what they got -- but a couple of them told me that they got a quarter and 50 cents. So -- and one girl said she got 75 . And she started a long time before -- after me." It was noted she had testified on redirect that she had worked on the sander and they were giving her the wrong sand paper to use; she was asked when was this. I don't remember what year that was, Panhorst stated. She agreed that it was after she developed her hand problems. Panhorst stated that she believed it was after the company began to harass her, and after one lady in particular, Alice Power, told her - if you're not careful the company is going to get rid of you. "...Alice Power, kept telling me that: 'Joanie, watch your back. Because they're trying to find a way to get rid of you'", Panhorst said, "(t)hat's all I know". Panhorst was queried - You indicated you got in trouble while working the sanding machine and that it was the wrong sand paper, how many times did they write you up on a Level 1 write up for that? They never did write me up on Level 1, the claimant answered. She was queried - They didn't write you up? "No, they didn't write me up", she admitted.
On cross examination by the Second Injury Fund, Panhorst agreed that as of the day before she got fired from Metalcraft, it was her intention to continue to work at Metalcraft. Panhorst was queried - Before you got what we'll call the Level 3 write up, or the piece of paper, the day you got fired had you ever received any other write ups from any supervisor or anyone else at Metalcraft during the entire time you worked there, either a Level 1, Level 2 or Level 3? No, Panhorst answered. In 1994, I was called up to the manger; but no, I didn't ever get no write up, she further stated. I never received any other write ups - either 1, 2 or 3 - on me for not doing what I was supposed to do before the very last day, the claimant agreed. She was asked - If you are being reprimanded at Metalcraft for not doing your job duties, or not doing what you're supposed to do, is that when you get a write up? I don't know, Panhorst answered. The claimant was asked if Metalcraft wants to discipline an employee, i.e. for not making quota, what do they do. They fire them, Panhorst answered When asked - what's the point of write ups then, what are those for, Panhorst answered: "I don't know. Because I had never had one."
During cross examination by the Second Injury Fund, Panhorst was queried - Since leaving Metal Craft in 1997 have your
psychological problems that you're experiencing gotten worse, gotten better, or stayed about the same? Gotten worse, the claimant answered. Panhorst explained: "I don't like to be around people much. And I stay home a lot."
Panhorst was asked, during cross examination, when she filed her claim for wrongful discharge to try to get her job back at Metalcraft was it her hope that that would cause her to get her job back at Metalcraft. Yeah I was trying to get back at Metalcraft, Panhorst answered, "'cause I never really did mind the job". She further stated: "Well, I probably still wouldn't have trusted some of the people out there. But I never did mind the work." Panhorst stated that the job duties she was doing when she first started at Metalcraft in 1990 were essentially the same jobs duties she was doing in 1997 when she got fired. I was working the same kind of hours in 1997 as I was working in 1990, the claimant said. "After I -- my hand got to hurting real bad I didn't get much overtime. But -- besides the maintenance people. I think I was the only person that they ever brought off the floor to clean the men's restroom."
On redirect examination, Panhorst agreed that the employer took her off the floor to clean the men's room. She was asked to explain the occasion for this, and Panhorst answered: "Well, they had some some people coming that they wanted it clean. And Orville knew I was a hard worker and -" Panhorst was asked if she considered this a sort of a type of punishment for her. I don't know, Panhorst responded. She was asked if she enjoyed that work, the cleaning of the men's room. I did it; I cleaned it good, Panhorst responded.
Dr. S. Parwatikar, M.D., testified by deposition on behalf of the claimant (No. C). A psychiatrist, Dr. Parwatikar, identified Employee's Deposition Exhibits 2 and 3 as reports he had prepared after evaluation of Panhorst in relation to her case; the doctor agreed that his evaluation included a review of medical records. It was noted that Dr. Parwatikar had seen Panhorst in August, 1999, and the doctor was asked if there would have been any benefit to seeing Panhorst more recently. "Well", Dr. Parwatikar answered, "the only thing I would have determined is whether the disability had gotten worse or remained the same, or what type of treatment she is receiving". (Parwatikar Dp. pg. 13) The doctor agreed that the disability he found in August, 1999 as reflected in his report was permanent.
Dr. Parwatikar, who stated that his testimony would be in accordance with his reports, wrote in his report about the medical records and reports he reviewed, Panhorst's complaints, the onset of her current problems, Panhorst's psychiatric and medical histories, her Alcohol and Drug history, Developmental and Social history, Educational history and Marital history. Panhorst's mental status examination was discussed. The results of Panhorst's Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory test was discussed by Dr. Parwatikar:
Overall, she had a tendency to express underlying psychological problems in terms of somatic complaints and has difficulty in accepting psychological problems and have a tendency to be dependent. There is a strong need for sympathy, attention and affection. This leads to problems with insecurity whenever such needs are not fulfilled leading to physical problems or complaints. The validity scales did not reveal any tendency to exaggerate or malinger (fake symptoms).
Dr. Parwatikar's diagnosis was: Axis I - Dysthymic disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Pain Disorder with Psychological and Medical Components related to Bilateral Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; Axis II - Personality Disorder, not otherwise specified (With Features of Dependent and Obsessive Compulsive Type); Axis III - History of Bilateral Carpal Tunnel Surgery, Status Cholecystectomy, Hysterectomy, Appendectomy, Lumpectomy and Car Accident in 1989; and Axis IV - Discussed below.