Based on a comprehensive review of the evidence, including Claimant's testimony, Dr. Hanaway's deposition, the medical records, a vocational opinion and testimony, Stipulations for Compromise Settlement/ Awards for various preexisting injuries and the Award resolving Employer's portion of this case, as well as my personal observations of Claimant at hearing, I find:
1) Claimant is a 50-year old former assembly line worker, who worked for Employer from April 1995 until October 1999. She performed regular labor work on the assembly line during her time working for Employer. She worked on approximately 59 cars per hour. At the time of her injury in October 1999, she was a floater, or utility worker, on the line, which means she filled in and did various jobs. On her last day of work, she was putting screws and patches onto the air conditioning units of the cars. Claimant testified she worked 10 hours a day, 6 days a week. She said it was a left handed job, but she did it with her right hand because of the prior injury and surgery to her shoulder.
2) Prior to her work at Employer, Claimant worked as a shipping clerk and machine operator for over 15 years for various other employers. She testified that all of her jobs required physical effort.
3) Regarding her education, Claimant testified that she left school in the $11^{\text {th }}$ grade and had no specialized training after that.
4) Claimant testified that she was injured in October 1999 when a mirror sticking out on a van going down the assembly line hit her and knocked her backwards. Claimant lost consciousness and woke up on her back. The first thing she recalled after the accident is the medical people standing over her. She said she went to the hospital with complaints to her head, neck, back and foot. Claimant testified that Employer sent her to Dr. Mendelsohn, and she was also examined by Dr. Morrow at the request of her attorney. She also remembered seeing Dr. Bernstein one time.
5) Despite Claimant's testimony regarding her examination with Dr. Mendelsohn, the only medical report from Dr. George E. Mendelsohn that is in evidence in this case is dated January 21, 1997. Obviously, it pre-dated the October 1999 injury, and it describes an apparent injury at work from October 1996 involving complaints in the left wrist, left shoulder and neck. The doctor indicates that an athrogram of the left shoulder was normal, but an MRI of the neck revealed disc protrusions at C5-6 and C4-5, without evidence of a lateralizing herniated disc. Dr. Mendelsohn opined that Claimant had unexplained left upper extremity pain for which he had no suggestions regarding treatment.
6) Claimant testified that when she was off work following the October 1999 injury, Employer paid other benefits to her, but no workers' compensation. She said her group insurance paid the medical bills and she received S\&A from Employer. She said that following that accident she began receiving Social Security benefits for disability.
7) Claimant testified that after her last injury, she asked Employer for a job, but they said they had no work available for her. She said she has not tried to get a job because her doctor, Social Security, and Employer all said no jobs were available for her.
8) Claimant testified that she received an Award of Compensation for the October 1999 injury for three herniated discs in her lower neck. According to the records of the Division of Workers’ Compensation, the Award issued against Employer on September 15, 2005 in Injury No. 99-181902, was based on 17.5\% permanent partial disability of the body as a whole referable to the neck.
9) In addition to this award of disability for the neck, Claimant testified that she also had a prior injury to the neck for which she received 4.75 % permanent partial disability. With regard to other prior injuries, Claimant testified that she had a head injury, but she did not receive compensation for it. She said her eyes and ears were OK. She had no problems with the mid-back, but she did have two herniated discs in the low back for which she received compensation. She testified that she had a left shoulder surgery and received compensation for it. She has also had problems with her right shoulder, but she does not recall receiving workers’ compensation for that. She testified that both of her elbows were injured at work. She has not had surgery on either one, but she received compensation for the right elbow. She said she has had right hand carpal tunnel surgery, but not left. She has had problems with her left hip, but no surgery, and does not know if she received compensation or not. She has had surgery on the left knee in the 1980s which was the subject of a workers’ compensation case. She also had surgery on the right knee as a young girl. She said both of her ankles have twisted numerous times, but she does not remember if she received workers’ compensation for them or not.
10) Claimant testified that she compiled the List of Medications (Exhibit N) that she currently takes. The medications listed are Ambien for sleeping, Ultracet for pain when she needs it, Zocor, Aciphex, Diazepam, Seroquel, Prozac, Wellbutrin, the use of a CPAP machine, and medication for acid reflux.
11) Claimant testified that on an average day she is homebound and suffering from depression. She said she is not able to do a lot of chores. She said she has short term memory problems. She said she usually stays home unless her husband takes her somewhere.
12) Claimant testified that her family doctor for the last 10 to 15 years has been Dr. Edward Burns, Jr. She testified that she sees Dr. Burns regularly for complaints with various parts of her body. She also testified that for about 10 years, she has received treatment for psychological problems at Allied Behavioral Group. She said she still sees them regularly for treatment of psychiatric problems, and she also takes medications for that condition.
13) The certified medical treatment records from Dr. Edward Burns (Exhibit Q) include an MRI of the left shoulder taken on May 18, 2000 and a nerve conduction study taken on May 18, 2000 because of complaints of numbness in the left hand. There are no accompanying medical notes or reports that give a history or explanation of the onset of these problems, nor is there any diagnosis or causation opinion. Furthermore, there are no medical records pre-existing the primary neck injury of October 2, 1999.
14) While the certified medical treatment records of Allied Behavioral Consultants, Inc. (Exhibit R) contain duplicate copies of many of the pages, they do document treatment Claimant had there beginning on October 24, 1996. Records continuing through 1997, 1998 and 1999 indicate visits for depression, panic attacks, and trouble sleeping, that Claimant attributed to sexual harassment at work and problems with her family (her sons). She received prescriptions for various medications throughout this period of time to treat her complaints. The notes from 1999, leading up to the time of her primary neck injury, document that she was taken off work at least one week in July 1999 by Dr. Hicks because of her on-going psychiatric care with him. Dr. Hicks issued a report dated September 21, 2000 in which he indicated that since March 16, 1999, Claimant has been seen by him every 4 to 6 weeks. She was frustrated with lack of progress on her legal problems and focused on her disability issues. She had continued sleep and appetite issues, occasional crying spells, and frustration and anger at being fired from work. The doctor comments that she "views herself as unable to continue with working in her previous environment."
15) The notes from Allied Behavioral Consultants, Inc. (Exhibit R) continue after the primary neck injury of October 2, 1999. She was now reporting mild auditory hallucinations in addition to the other previously reported complaints. She continued to take medications. The records also document that she continued to perceive conflict with Chrysler and her family members. She described additional stress from the death of her son’s parrot that worsened his schizophrenia on June 14, 2001. She also in that note described distress from her recent diagnosis of fibrocystic disease. On October 11, 2001, she described increased trauma and frustration from her arrest at Disney World in Florida for theft. On December 13, 2001, she continued to describe problems related to dealing with that arrest. On April 18, 2002, she described problems related to a recent diagnosis of skin cancer on her forehead and she also explained how she had been stopped at Scott Air Force Base for shoplifting. The last note is dated January 19, 2005. Throughout this course of treatment (going back even before the primary neck injury), Claimant has generally been diagnosed with major depression, recurrent, severe, as well as a panic disorder without agoraphobia, an occupational problem with sexual harassment, possible acute post traumatic stress disorder, and a dependent personality disorder.
16) Prior to the last injury in October 1999, she said she was off work a lot. She said that is why her pay on the W2's was less. (Exhibit O) She said she never worked a 50 or 60 hour week because of the prior injuries. She
admitted on cross-examination though, that there were times during the week when she would get overtime pay because of working overtime.
17) She denied any subsequent accidents and testified that her condition is no better since she quit work.
18) Claimant admitted that she was not using a CPAP machine at the time of her injury in October 1999. She was using it, however, about 3 years before she was evaluated by Dr. Bernstein. Claimant said she has breathing problems from the sleep apnea, and trouble sleeping at night. She said that condition makes it difficult for her to function because of a lack of sleep. She said she told Dr. Burns about the breathing problems, but she was unsure if she told anyone else.
19) Dr. Joseph Hanaway first examined Claimant at the request of her attorney on May 6, 2003. (Exhibits D and S) In his deposition, he corrected the date in his report that she supposedly last worked from 2001 to 1999. The report contained a consistent description of the injury at work on the line, although it was not clear if he thought that occurred in 1997 or in October 1999. It also contained a history of an injury at work in 1997, when she injured her left shoulder and had neck pain. Spasm was found on the neck examination, as well as lost range of motion. There was lost range of motion on examination of both shoulders and also lost range of motion and spasm on examination of the low back. Motor function, muscle bulk, tone, strength, sensory examination and reflexes were all normal. Dr. Hanaway formed an impression that Claimant injured her left shoulder and neck in 1997 and then mentions she was injured again in October 1999, but never says what body parts were involved in that injury. He notes chronic low back pain and radicular pain in the legs, but radicular pain in the legs is mentioned nowhere else in his findings or in the report. He also notes sleep apnea, chronic anxiety and problems with her shoulders and elbows. He recommends testing and treatment, but provides no opinion on medical causation, what is related to the October 1999 injury as opposed to pre-existing conditions or subsequent deterioration, and also provides no opinion on disability regarding any condition listed in his report.
20) Dr. Hanaway's next report is dated May 27, 2003. He notes that he has now reviewed an MRI of the cervical spine from May 22, 2003 which reveals a "clearcut central herniated disc at C5-6 with spinal cord compression." He also finds a herniated disc at C4-5. He notes now that "All of the patient's reflexes are hyperactive." He also finds bilateral Hoffmann signs. He explained in his deposition that the Hoffmann signs are "a pathologic reflex which doesn't exist unless the patient has spinal cord compression." He opined that, "her working at Chrysler over the years is responsible for this." He recommends a surgical consultation.
21) In his next report dated May 3, 2005, Dr. Hanaway notes that Claimant has seen a surgeon, discussed neck surgery with him for the herniated discs, and she decided not to have that surgery. He notes that she is getting along fairly well without the surgery.
22) The last report from Dr. Hanaway is dated May 21, 2006. It is clear in the deposition though that there is some mix-up regarding that date, and the doctor was unsure when he actually examined Claimant. The report refers to a lumbar spine CT done on May 19, 2003 which showed disc abnormalities at L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1. The doctor notes that Claimant last worked in 1999. The examination revealed tenderness, spasm, and lost range of motion in the low back. Dr. Hanaway diagnosed a herniated disc at L5-S1 and a protruding disc at L4-5. He recommended that she "get an MRI scan of the neck because of her reflexes and bring that to me."(emphasis added) Once again there was no opinion on disability, medical causation, or what is related to the October 1999 injury as opposed to pre-existing conditions or subsequent deterioration.
23) Claimant admitted into evidence various prior Stipulations for Compromise Settlement/ Awards without any supporting medical records or reports, since none of the medical records or reports were certified, and since the experts were not deposed and subject to cross-examination prior to hearing. (Exhibit T) The Stipulations/ Awards for these prior cases contain the following amounts of disability: Injury No. 84-67083, 20\% of the left knee and a Second Injury Fund settlement for pre-existing disability to the back; Injury No. 85-64124, 10\% of the back and a Second Injury Fund settlement for pre-existing knee and body disability; Injury No. 88-024190, 5\% of the body as a whole (face, chest, shoulders, neck and arms) for dermatitis and an alleged Second Injury Fund settlement that will not be considered because the stipulation submitted is unsigned by the parties and unapproved; Injury No. 89-068303, 17.5\% of the right hand and an alleged Second Injury Fund settlement that will not be considered because the stipulation submitted is unsigned by the parties and unapproved; Injury No. 90-178993, 20\% of the right wrist, 15 % of the left wrist and 2.5 % of the body as a whole referable to the low back; Injury No. 90151430, 25 % of the mid joint of the left index finger; Injury No. 96-011861, 15\% of the left hip and a Second Injury Fund settlement for alleged pre-existing disability to the left hip, right hand, left wrist, left leg and low back; Injury No. 96-128332, unknown disability to the left wrist; Injury No. 96-128333, 4.786\% of the neck and body; Injury No. 97-045361, 17.45\% of the left shoulder and a Second Injury Fund settlement for alleged preexisting disability to the left shoulder, left hip, right hand, left wrist, left knee, and low back; Injury No. 97440705, unknown disability to the right arm; and Injury No. 98-057107, unknown disability to the left ankle and hip.
24) Claimant's vocational expert, Dr. Samuel Bernstein, testified live at the continuation of the hearing on August
30, 2006. Dr. Bernstein is a licensed psychologist and vocational expert. He met with Claimant one time at the request of Claimant's attorney and prepared a report dated April 25, 2006. (Exhibit M) The one and only time he met with Claimant occurred some $61 / 2$ years after her claimed injury on October 2, 1999. Dr. Bernstein testified that her age was a factor in her ability to be placed in employment. He noted that she had multiple orthopedic problems and psychological problems as well. He also found that she had limited education. Her prior work was essentially as an assembly worker doing light, unskilled repetitive work. He testified that all of her prior injuries were impairments. He concluded that at the time he saw her, given the combination of all of her injuries and problems, she would not be employable.
25) On cross-examination, Dr. Bernstein admitted that any limitations listed in the report came from Claimant. He admitted that there were no limitations placed on her by physicians, because if there had been, he would have noted that in his report. He did not see any restrictions, psychiatric or otherwise, from any medical professional. He admitted that he took into account her breathing problems, sleep apnea, and use of the CPAP machine, but he did not think it was a big part of his ultimate conclusion. He admitted that he did not see any doctor's opinions on ability to work.