| Issued by THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION |
| FINAL AWARD ALLOWING COMPENSATION(Affirming Award and Decision of Administrative Law Judge) |
| Injury No.: 05-002579 |
| Employee: | Edward Michalik |
| Employer: | True Manufacturing |
| Insurer: | Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company |
| Additional Party: | Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund (Open) |
| Date of Accident: | January 11, 2005 |
| Place and County of Accident: | Franklin County, Missouri |
| The above-entitled workers' compensation case is submitted to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) for review as provided bysection 287.480 RSMo. Having reviewed the evidence and considered the whole record, the Commissionfinds 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 January 25, 2007. The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Leslie E. H. Brown, issued January 25, 2007, 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 19th day of September 2007.LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION |
| William F. Ringer, Chairman |
| Alice A. Bartlett, Member |
| DISSENTING OPINION FILED |
| John J. Hickey, Member |
| Attest: |
| ***_******_******_***____ | Secretary |
| DISSENTING OPINION |
| After a review of the entire record as a whole, and consideration of the relevant provisions of the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Law, I believe the decision of the administrative law judge should bemodified.I agree with the administrative law judge’s denial of benefits with regard to employee’s right elbow and wrist |
injuries as all symptoms pertaining to those injuries resolved. However, I believe the administrative law judge erred in concluding that employee's work related accident on January 11, 2005 was not a substantial factor in causing his right shoulder injury.
The administrative law judge found that employee failed to prove that his shoulder condition was a result of his work-related injury. The administrative law judge found that the substantial weight of the evidence indicated that employee experienced the right shoulder pain or injury in issue two days after the work related accident, and after work hours, and not on the premises of his employment but rather at home while removing his shirt. However, competent and substantial evidence shows that employee did suffer a shoulder injury on January 11, 2005.
Immediately following his injury, employee sought treatment and complained of pain in his right wrist, elbow and shoulder. Employee underwent x-rays of his wrist and elbow, but none were taken of his shoulder at that time. However, the medical record does indicate that employee had shoulder related complaints immediately following his work-related injury which pre-dated the "pop" he experienced in his right shoulder on the $13^{\text {th }}$ of January. Employee was suffering from an injury which could have been aggravated by other activities, such as removing his shirt. Any subsequent aggravation of his condition would be related to the primary injury on the $11^{\text {th }}$ of January. Therefore, almost certainly the pop employee experienced while removing his shirt was only an aggravation of his January 11, 2005 work-related injury and was not the cause of employee's shoulder injury.
Furthermore, employee has established through the testimony of Dr. Volarich that the work injury sustained on January 11, 2005, was the substantial contributing factor causing employee's right shoulder strain injury. Dr. Volarich opined that as a direct result of the injuries sustained on January 11, 2005, that there was a 20\% permanent partial disability of the right upper extremity rated at the shoulder due to the strain/sprain injury and development of myofascial pain in the trapezius muscle. The rating accounted for the joint strain, which contributed to employee's pain, mild loss of motion, and weakness in the dominant arm.
Therefore, employee has met his burden by establishing that he suffered a work-related injury on January 11, 2005 and that his shoulder condition is medically causally related to the work-related injury. Accordingly, I would modify the decision of the administrative law judge and award compensation for employee's right shoulder injury.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority of the Commission to deny compensation for employee's right shoulder strain injury.
John J. Hickey, Member
AWARD
Employee: Edward Michalik
Injury No. 05-002579
Dependents: ---
Employer: True Manufacturing
Additional Party: State Treasurer, as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund (Open)
Insurer: Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
Hearing Date: October 19, 2006
Before the
DIVISION OF WORKERS'
COMPENSATION
Department of Labor and Industrial
Relations of Missouri
Jefferson City, Missouri
Checked by: LEHB/lsn