Chad Canoy v. Crown Reinforcing & K Bates

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 April 14, 2008, and awards no compensation in the above-captioned case.

The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Matthew D. Vacca, issued April 14, 2008, is attached and incorporated by this reference.

Given at Jefferson City, State of Missouri, this 31st day of October 2008.

LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

NOT SITTING William F. Ringer, Chairman

Alice A. Bartlett, Member

John J. Hickey, Member Attest:

- Nature and extent of any permanent disability: Not determined

1. Compensation paid to-date for temporary disability: $\ 0
2. Value necessary medical aid paid to date by employer/insurer? $\ 0

Employee: Chad M. Canoy

Injury No.: 03-145603

1. Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer/insurer? $\ 0

- Employee's average weekly wages: $\ 695.18

1. Weekly compensation rate: $\$ 463.45 / \ 340.12
2. Method wages computation: statutory

1. Amount of compensation payable:
2. Second Injury Fund liability: Open

Total: $\ 0

1. Future requirements awarded: None

Said payments to begin and to be payable and be subject to modification and review as provided by law.

The compensation awarded to the claimant shall be subject to a lien in the amount of of all payments hereunder in favor of the following attorney for necessary legal services rendered to the claimant: N/A

Employee: Chad M. Canoy

Injury No.: 03-145603

Dependents: $\quad \mathrm{N} / \mathrm{A}$

Before the

Division of Workers'

A Hearing was held in the above-captioned matter at the Division of Workers' Compensation office in St. Louis, Missouri on Wednesday, February 13, 2008. The Claimant was represented by attorney Geoffrey Jones. The Employer, Crown Reinforcing and their Insurer, American Home Assurance Company c/o AIG Domestic Claims, Inc, were represented by attorney John D. Dietrick. The Employer K Bates Steel and its Insurer, Amerisure Companies were represented by attorney Stephen Barber.

The issues presented for resolution by way of this Hearing are occupational disease, arising out of and in the course of employment, medical causation, notice, permanent partial disability, temporary total disability and which law (pre-2005 or post-2005) applies in this case.

Claimant is an iron worker. He experienced a neck injury occurring October 24, 2002 while employed by Crown Reinforcing. While Claimant was treating for that injury he was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome. The parties agree he has CTS, they however disagree what caused the condition, whether the condition is work related and further which employer is responsible for benefits for the CTS, if it is work related. The issues presented for determination in the present instance are: occupational disease, arising out of and in the course of employment, medical causation for carpal tunnel syndrome, nature and extent of injury, temporary total disability, notice of injury and the controlling law.

Based on all the competent, substantial and credible evidence and reasonable inferences there from, I find the following facts:

1. Claimant is an iron worker. He has been a member of the Iron Worker’s Union for approximately seven (7) years. Claimant’s job duties primarily included tying rebar, laying decking and connecting steel. Tying rebar requires the claimant to use shears and connect and tie rods of steel with wires using a twisting motion. Laying decking requires the claimant to carry and place sheets of metal and weld them in place. Connecting requires the claimant to beat pins into place in an effort to lock multiple pieces of steel together. This work involves the use of tools including pliers, wire cutters, impact wrenches, shears, wrenches, hammers and welders. All of his jobs since 1999 have been assigned out of the union hall.
2. The Claimant worked for Crown Reinforcing from October of 2002 until May of 2003. He worked 24 hours for Crown Reinforcing in June of 2003. From June 2003 to November 2004 Claimant worked for R&R Builders, K Bates Steel Services, Perfection Steel, Rod Busters and Select Steel Service. Since November of 2004 the Claimant has worked for Select Steel Services, Inc. He worked there continuously until April of 2006.

1. The original Claim for Compensation filed in connection with this case naming Crown Reinforcing and K Bates Steel as the Employers was filed on January 11, 2005. The Claimant was working at Select Steel Services at the time the Claim was filed. An Order of Dismissal was issued by the Division of Workers' Compensation dismissing Crown Reinforcing and its Insurer without prejudice on July 26, 2005. No Application for Review was filed in relationship to that Dismissal. A subsequent Claim for Compensation was filed on October 21, 2005 naming Crown Reinforcing and K Bates Steel as the Employers. The Claimant was working for Select Steel Service at the time the Claim was filed on October 21, 2005.
2. On October 24, 2002, claimant was climbing a ladder, during the course of his employment at Crown Reinforcing, when he struck his head on a $2 \times 4$. Claimant filed a claim for compensation for that incident, injury no. 02-151885. Claimant was dazed but continued working. Shortly thereafter Claimant developed neck pain. Claimant testified that his right arm started hurting approximately a month later and at around the same time he began having problems with his left upper extremity.
3. The Claimant denied reporting the hand symptoms to Crown Reinforcing and did not complete any Reports of Injury regarding the symptoms in his upper extremities. He never asked for medical treatment from anyone at Crown Reinforcing for the symptoms in his hands.
4. Dr. David Lange provided medical care to the Claimant beginning December 17, 2002 for the neck injuries sustained on October 24, 2002. (Ex. 3). Claimant complained of aching in his neck. Claimant also complained to Dr. Lange that over a week after he struck his head he had pain and paresthesias in his right elbow. (Ex. 3). On January 30, 2003 Claimant described for the first time to Dr. Lange paresthesias in two-thirds of the right hand, soreness and grip strength weakness. (Ex. 3). On that visit Claimant had a mildly positive Tinel's sign over the right carpal tunnel. (Ex. 3). Dr. Lange, who was treating Claimant at the request of Crown Reinforcing, referred Claimant to Dr. Bernard Randolph for an electrodiagnostic consult. (Ex. 3).
5. Dr. David Lange noted in his May 8, 2003 report that the Claimant's symptoms in his right hand had existed since shortly after the October 24, 2002 injury. He opined that his hand numbness was related to his injury in October of 2002. He stated that simply because this is not a cervical radiculopathy on electro diagnostics does not suggest that the problem does not exist nor did not follow his work related incident in October of 2002.
6. Dr. Bernard Randolph conducted electrodiagnostic studies on April 9, 2003. (Ex. H). The studies revealed moderate right carpal tunnel syndrome. (Ex. H). Dr. Randolph opined that the finding of carpal tunnel syndrome was not clinically significant to the injury of October 24, 2002.
7. On April 17, 2003, Dr. Lange opined that the electro diagnostic testing found no definite significant

radiculopathy related to the cervical spine. (Ex. 3). On May 1, 2003, Claimant described to Dr. Lange local paresthesias of the right hand after using a power washer at work the day before. Dr. Lange proceeded to opine that paresthesias was "related to his work-related activities of October 2002." (Ex. 3).

1. Following Dr. Randolph's initial consultation of April 9, 2003, he repeatedly provided reports at the request of Crown Reinforcing. Dr. Randolph opined that the carpal tunnel syndrome experience would not be caused by the description of the accident of October 24, 2002. (Ex. H). According to Dr. Randolph, Claimant's duties as an iron worker were the substantial factor in the development of his carpal tunnel syndrome. (Ex. H). He reiterated that opinion in subsequent reports.
2. Dr. Randolph performed an independent medical exam of the Claimant on April 4, 2005. (Ex. H). He opined the mechanism of injury described by Claimant in October 2002 would not lead to the development of compression neuropathy at the levels of the wrist. (Ex. H). "Carpal tunnel syndrome may represent the effects of cumulative activities as an iron worker over time." (Ex. H).
3. Dr. Robert Bernardi, a spine surgeon, examined the Claimant in association with his injury of October 24, 2002. Dr. Bernardi stated that Claimant's right hand symptoms most likely represent symptomatic carpal tunnel syndrome. (Ex. 1). He concluded that since the Claimant had right arm paresthesias after his October 2002 event the carpal tunnel syndrome would be related to that incident but suggested evaluation by a hand surgeon.