| Issued by THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION |
| FINAL AWARD DENYING COMPENSATION |
| (Affirming Award and Decision of Administrative Law Judge |
| with Supplemental Opinion) |
| Injury No.: 02-157799 |
| Employee: | Wendy Hagan |
| Employer: | Christian Hospital NE NW |
| Insurer: | Self-insured |
| Date of Accident: | November 1, 2002 |
| Place and County of Accident: | St. Louis County, Missouri |
| 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 § 286.090 RSMo., the Commission affirms the award and decision of the administrative law judge dated May 18, 2007. The award and decision (decision) of Administrative Law Judge Cornelius T. Lane is attached hereto for reference. We adopt the findings, conclusions, decision, and award of the administrative law judge to the extent that they are not inconsistent with what is set forth below. |
| INTRODUCTION |
| Administrative Law Judge Lane's decision held that employee's neck, arm, and hand maladies were not a result of her keystroke and other work for employer. The decision, thus, denied employee's request for past and future medical expenses and for permanent partial disability benefits. Employee filed an Application for Review with the Commission. |
| DISCUSSION |
| We first note that the administrative law judge made an error in fact 7 of the Findings of Fact. Fact 7 states as follows: “Dr. Hoffman testified very credibly he did not feel Claimant's work was a primary substantial factor in causing her upper extremity complaints.” Dr. Hoffman did not testify, personally or through deposition; and we find no causal opinion set forth in Dr. Hoffman's reports. The balance of the decision indicates that the administrative law judge should have attributed and meant to attribute this conclusion to Dr. Charles Goldfarb.Dr. Goldfarb was involved in employee's treatment over a substantial period of time. He is board certified in both orthopedic and hand surgery. He was very familiar with employee's duties for employer which had evolved since she began working for it in 1980. |
| Dr. Goldfarb determined that employee's work for employer was not a substantial factor in her development of carpal tunnel syndrome, De Quervain's tendonitis, cervical spondylitic radiopathy, or any other upper extremity conditions. Dr. Goldfarb provided three very specific reasons for his conclusions.First, employee had multiple, diffuse, inflammatory-based problems that had presented themselves in different areas. This type of varied presentation would be unusual for a work-related cause such as keystroking.Second, she had cervical spine disease and was over-weight. Dr. Goldfarb identified these co-morbidities as more likely risk factors with respect to employee's maladies. |
| Third, based on both the ergonomic studies of her duties and her descriptions to the doctor of her work for employer, Dr. Goldfarb did not believe employee's keystroking, telephone, or other duties were of the type that would likely place her at much risk. Furthermore, even during the post-operative period when she was removed from her work duties for an extended time, her upper extremity symptoms did not improve. |
Dr. Daniel Kitchens (a board certified neurosurgeon) and ergonomics consultant, Jennifer Christy, agreed with Dr. Goldfarb's conclusion that employee's work for employer was not a substantial factor in the development of the various complaints connected with this case.
The ultimate determination of credibility of witnesses rests with the Commission; however, the Commission should take into consideration the credibility determinations made by an administrative law judge. When reviewing an administrative law judge's award, the Commission is not bound to yield to his or her findings including those relating to credibility and is authorized to reach its own conclusions. An administrative law judge is no more qualified than the Commission to weigh expert credibility from a transcript or deposition. Kent v. Goodyear Tire \& Rubber Co., 147 S.W.3d 865, 871 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004).
In this case, however, we agree with the administrative law judge's determination that the deposition testimony of Dr. Goldfarb, Dr. Kitchens, and Jennifer Christy should be given greater weight (than the information from Dr. Cohen) because their information most logically interprets the facts connected with this matter.