Ronald Ford v. Ameren UE

The above-entitled workers' compensation case is submitted to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) for review as provided by section 287.480 RSMo. Having reviewed the evidence and considered the whole record, the Commission finds 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 July 2, 2007. The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Kathleen M. Hart, issued July 2, 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 $29^{\text {th }}$ day of October 2007. LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION William F. Ringer, Chairman

Alice A. Bartlett, Member John J. Hickey, Member Attest:

Secretary

1. Are any benefits awarded herein? Yes
2. Was the injury or occupational disease compensable under Chapter 287? Yes
3. Was there an accident or incident of occupational disease under the Law? Yes
4. Date of accident or onset of occupational disease: June 30, 2004
5. State location where accident occurred or occupational disease was contracted: St. Louis
6. Was above employee in employ of above employer at time of alleged accident or occupational disease? Yes
7. Did employer receive proper notice? Yes
8. Did accident or occupational disease arise out of and in the course of the employment? Yes
9. Was claim for compensation filed within time required by Law? Yes
10. Was employer insured by above insurer? Yes
11. Describe work employee was doing and how accident occurred or occupational disease contracted: Claimant contracted bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of his job duties for Employer.
12. Did accident or occupational disease cause death? No Date of death? n/a
13. Part(s) of body injured by accident or occupational disease: right and left wrists
14. Nature and extent of any permanent disability: 171 / 2 % of the right wrist, 171 / 2 % of the left wrist, 10 % multiplicity factor
15. Compensation paid to-date for temporary disability: None
16. Value necessary medical aid paid to date by employer/insurer? None

Employee: Ronald Ford Injury No.: 04-062525 17. Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer/insurer? Unknown. Parties stipulated to a hold harmless agreement in the event Claimant's injuries were found compensable. 18. Employee's average weekly wages: $\ 1,268.00 19. Weekly compensation rate: $\$ 662.55 / \ 347.05 20. Method wages computation: Stipulation

1. Amount of compensation payable:

1. Employer had notice of the injury and a claim for compensation was timely filed.
2. Claimant's wages were sufficient to entitle him to the maximum compensation rates of $\$ 662.55 / \ 347.05.
3. Claimant has received no TTD payments to date and no medical expenses were paid on his behalf.
4. In the event the Employer is found responsible for Claimant's occupational disease, Employer has agreed to hold harmless and indemnify Claimant for all of the medical bills paid by his group medical carrier as well as for the time loss benefits previously paid.

The parties stipulated the issues to be resolved are as follows:

1. Whether the Claimant sustained an injury by occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment;
2. Whether Claimant's carpal tunnel syndrome is medically and causally related to his employment;
3. Nature and extent of Claimant's permanent partial disability and liability for any disfigurement.

Based upon the competent and substantial evidence, I find:

1. Claimant is a 52 year-old male who currently resides in Arnold, MO. He is 6'3" tall and weighs approximately 224 pounds. His weight has remained steady for the last several years.
2. Claimant is currently employed by Employer as a Unit Operating Engineer (UOE). He began working for Union Electric Company upon his high school graduation in June 1973. He has no other formal training or military service. He was initially hired as a janitor and later transferred to the coal gang.
3. The work on the coal gang required him to clean out coal chutes and break large pieces of stuck coal. He described having to manually destroy the pieces with a large metal rod, and he explained that tremendous amount of force was required.
4. Claimant then advanced to the position of Laborer, which also required extensive hand use and heavy physical labor. As a Laborer, he was also required to use jack hammers, water lances, air guns, high pressure hoses, and large hand tools.
5. Claimant next worked as a Super Cleaner and performed some of the functions described earlier, in addition to having to clean in other areas. His work as a Super Cleaner was similar to the duties of his next position, Plant Operating Engineer (POE).
6. As a POE, he was responsible for making rounds around the facility and checking the oil levels and temperature of various equipment. He also performed extensive valving, scraping of coal feeders, backing out of blowers as well as tagging out of equipment.
7. Claimant also worked as an Assistant Unit Operating Engineer (UOE), a position which could result in him being downgraded to a POE position or working as a UOE. In addition to the job described earlier, he also used high pressure water hoses with a water cannon to clean out other areas.
8. Claimant has been classified as a UOE since 1987. The physical requirements of this job changed drastically in 1994 when a digital control system was instituted. Prior to that time, Claimant used a bench board, which required manual adjustment of pneumatic levers. Starting in 1994, he was able to perform the same functions via the use of a ten monitor control system controlled by mouse/track balls and key boards. He explained there were six track balls operating at once to control the numerous screens, and the majority of

work required him to tap on the mouse balls.

1. He also explained that his work as a UOE required him to complete workmen's protection orders. Initially, this required extensive typing as the database was not complete. The most significant period of typing occurred around October and November of 2003. At times he typed all day. Claimant noted increased hand complaints at this time.
2. Claimant reviewed a job description prepared by an unknown person. (Exhibit F) He explained there were a large number of responsibilities of a POE that were not mentioned in the job description. He provided examples, many of which included hand intensive tasks described earlier, such as use of a high pressure hose, hydrovac and an air impact wrench.
3. Claimant also provided a copy of his work schedule from February and March of 2003. He testified he spent an average of 3 days a week on POE functions and 2 days a week in the UOE position.
4. Claimant first noticed problems with his hands in 1998 and 1999. Initially, the symptoms consisted of his hands falling asleep, and he was able to function by taking a break or shaking his hands. He did not seek any treatment at that time and waited until his hand complaints worsened in late 2003 and early 2004 before seeking treatment.
5. Claimant attempted to report his hand complaints and seek treatment through his supervisors. He ran into some delays as a result of their inability to locate the appropriate form. Claimant was eventually sent to Diane Hicks who noted Claimant's complaints and an appointment was made on behalf of Employer with Dr. Ollinger.
6. Dr. Ollinger examined Claimant on July 12, 2004. He recommended Claimant undergo bilateral nerve conduction studies, but was unable to receive authorization to proceed. Dr. Ollinger concluded Claimant's work was not a substantial factor in the development of his carpal tunnel syndrome.
7. Claimant next was seen by Dr. Maylack who eventually performed bilateral carpal tunnel releases. Claimant missed time from work and was paid sick leave. He returned to work in the control room full time in January 2005.
8. He reported improvement as a result of the surgical intervention, mainly with the severity of numbness and tingling. He continues to complain of considerable loss of grip strength, right greater than left. He continues to have tenderness in his palms, an inability to hold the string when bow hunting, and difficulty opening jars and bottlecaps. He has pain with prolonged gripping and twisting. He complains of locking up of his right thumb, index and long fingers on strenuous gripping. He has an approximately one inch scar on each hand.
9. Claimant testified regarding some of his prior injuries. In the early 1980's, he injured his right wrist. He had two surgeries involving a bone graft and screws from below his thumb into his forearm. He was released from treatment and returned to work. He has had no other treatment for this injury since the 1980's. He continues to have range of motion restrictions, but did not have numbness and tingling