Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

Sharon Snyder v. Consolidated Library District

Decision date: January 30, 200914 pages

Summary

The Commission reversed the Administrative Law Judge's award of workers' compensation benefits to Sharon Snyder, finding insufficient evidence that her arm injury was sustained in a work accident on January 9, 2006. The reversal was based on inconsistencies in the employee's account and lack of corroboration from her supervisor regarding the alleged work-related injury, resulting in no compensation being awarded.

Archive Notice

This archive contains published Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission workers' compensation decisions reproduced for research convenience. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Legal Help

Practical guidance for this decision

Third-Party Injury Check

This workers' comp decision may point to a separate injury claim.

  • A driver, contractor, property owner, or equipment company may share fault.
  • The injury involved a vehicle, unsafe premises, defective equipment, or a non-employer vendor.
  • A serious injury or death may need both benefits review and civil-claim analysis.

Caption

Employee:Sharon Snyder
Employer:Consolidated Library District
Insurer:Guarantee Insurance Company

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, heard oral argument, read the briefs, and considered the entire record, the Commission issues this reversal of the award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Rebecca S. Magruder dated May 16, 2008 (Award), pursuant to section 286.090 RSMo and awards no compensation in the above-captioned case.

INTRODUCTION

The administrative law judge relied on the testimony of employee in reaching her conclusions. The administrative law judge also found that the "medical records consistently state that [employee] injured herself at work moving boxes." On the other hand, the judge reconciled employee's seemingly contrary statement to her doctor only eight days after the alleged onset of her injury as due to "miscommunication" that was "perhaps" due to her doctor's pregnancy and poor language skills. The administrative law judge held that employee sustained an accident at work on January 9, 2006, and, accordingly, granted her benefits.

Counsel for employer/insurer filed an Application for Review with the Commission.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Employee had been working for employer since 1993. She began as a part-time page and ultimately became a full-time library assistant at employer's North Independence Branch.

As a library assistant, it was a part of her duties to deal with books and other library materials that arrived twice each day in plastic "tote" boxes. One of these deliveries came first thing in the morning. Normally, 15 to 18 totes were delivered each morning. These totes were divided evenly between the six to eight workers present. The number of totes delivered was sometimes greater immediately after the Christmas and New Year holidays.

During a period of about one hour before patrons arrived, employee and the other workers had to process the materials in the totes. New books went to the workroom. Returning books were checked back in and put on a cart for pages to re-shelf. Materials that had been put on hold were separated from the other materials.

Employee provided the following testimony. On January 9, 2006, employer was short-staffed in the morning, the workload was high, and employee began to experience pain in her arm during the hour that she was working with the materials from the totes. She had not felt any pain in her arm prior to the beginning of that

shift. Within a matter of days, employee told her immediate supervisor about the pain and that it was incurred at work. In fact, employee testified that she told the supervisor, Ms. Teagarden, "over and over again that [she] hurt [her] arm lifting those totes."

Employee's friend and immediate supervisor, Ms. Teagarden, recalled employee speaking to her and other workers about her medical problems but had no recollection of employee telling her that work caused such problems. Somewhat to the contrary, Ms. Teagarden was familiar with the need to file an incident report if an employee believed he or she was injured on-the-job; and said that if any worker indicated such an incident had occurred, she would have so advised him or her.

The first time Ms. Teagarden recalled employee telling her that employee's medical problems were workrelated was approximately April 21, 2006, when employee came to her with a letter from her health care insurer (Blue Cross Blue Shield). The letter was an inquiry as to whether her recent medical complaints were work-related. Employee did not know how to answer or proceed. She believed that surgery would be required. Ms. Teagarden had employee meet with her supervisor and, ultimately, Jennifer Reeder (employer's benefits coordinator). After talking with Ms. Reeder, employee took the weekend to think about whether she wanted to proceed with a claim for Workers' Compensation. On April 25, 2006, employee completed an incident report for employer; and on April 26, a Report of Injury was completed.

Employee's first medical treatment revealed in the evidence was a visit to Dr. Britt Batchelor on January 12, 2006. Despite employee's contention that she knew immediately she had injured herself at work on January 9 , she listed "January 4, 2006" on the doctor's patient data form she filled out as the date of her "illness." Employee's explanation for this date is that she was "brain dead." Consistent with that note, though, the doctor made the following notation in his record: "[P]atient indicated pain has been present less than 8 days." Right after the form asked for the date of the injury, it asked for the time and location of the injury. Employee checked the boxes indicating both "AM" and "PM," as well as writing in "work/home." On the doctor's forms, employee was also asked "How did accident occur?" She was given the choice of three boxes: "Auto," "On the job," and "Other." She placed an "X" by both "On the job" and "Other." The doctor's notes do contain the somewhat speculative comment, "poss moved books wrong."

On January 16, employee went to Independence Urgent. The doctor's entry from that visit stated, "Pt c/o neck pain X2 wks . . . she denies any trauma or fall recently." It also indicates, "Neck pain of ? etiol[ogy]."

On January 17, employee visited her family doctor, Dr. Ghazal Shaikh. Dr. Shaikh spent more than half an hour with employee. The doctor's notes from that appointment record, "No history of any trauma or fall but has been lifting furniture for the last two weeks."

Employee did not allege and we have no evidence that employee was moving furniture at work. We do have evidence that employee and her husband were involved in an extensive renovation of their antebellum, 5,000 square foot home in the months leading up to October 2005, when the home was filmed for HGTV.

Employee testified that her family physician was a "foreigner," that her doctor was "very much in labor when I was visiting her" on January 17, that she probably told the doctor she was moving "totes and at work and stuff. And again, she was in labor."

Dr. Shaikh's notes also indicate that the doctor will "schedule an EMG on the left upper extremity." Dr. Shaikh arranged that EMG for the next day.

The notes of Dr. Kent Cooper, who carried out the EMG on January 18, contain nothing about a work-related injury. They also say that employee reported her symptoms as having been present for two or three weeks.

Although employee testified that her physician, Dr. Shaikh, was on maternity leave for three months immediately after January 17, 2006, the records show that she had a follow up visit with this doctor on March 16, 2006. The notes from this visit again read, "No history of any trauma or fall."

Dr. Shaikh arranged for an MRI. Dr. Stephen Dykstra's report from the MRI appointment on March 18 states as follows: "The patient has no history of recent injury."

Dr. Shaikh also arranged for employee to receive an epidural injection. This procedure took place on April 6, 2006. The notes from Dr. George A. Edwards on that date read, "Ms. Snyder states that this problem has developed over the last three months. She denies any significant injury or event that seemed to have triggered her problem."

April 21 was when employee talked with Ms. Teagarden and Ms. Reeder.

On April 25, 2006, when employee filled out the incident report, employer sent her to Dr. Doris Zhong. In speaking with Dr. Zhong, employee revealed that she was injured on January 9, 2006, "while she was unloading totes and boxes of books at the Library [that] weighed between 20 to 50 pounds."

DISCUSSION

As of January 2006, section 287.120.1 RSMo, as amended in 2005, provided in pertinent part as follows:

Every employer subject to the provisions of this chapter shall be liable, irrespective of negligence, to furnish compensation under the provisions of this chapter for personal injury or death of the employee by accident arising out of and in the course of the employee's employment, and shall be released from all other liability therefor whatsoever, whether to the employee or any other person.

The definition of "accident" was significantly changed in the 2005 legislation. Section 287.020.2 RSMo and related subsections read as follows:

  1. The word "accident" as used in this chapter shall mean an unexpected traumatic event or unusual strain identifiable by time and place of occurrence and producing at the time objective symptoms of an injury caused by a specific event during a single work shift. An injury is not compensable because work was a triggering or precipitating factor.
  2. (1) In this chapter the term "injury" is hereby defined to be an injury which has arisen out of and in the course of employment. An injury by accident is compensable only if the accident was the prevailing factor in causing both the resulting medical condition and disability. "The prevailing factor" is defined to be the primary factor, in relation to any other factor, causing both the resulting medical condition and disability.

(2) An injury shall be deemed to arise out of and in the course of the employment only if:

(a) It is reasonably apparent, upon consideration of all the circumstances, that the accident is the prevailing factor in causing the injury; and

(b) It does not come from a hazard or risk unrelated to the employment to which workers would have been equally exposed outside of and unrelated to the employment in normal nonemployment life;

(3) An injury resulting directly or indirectly from idiopathic causes is not compensable;

(4) A cardiovascular, pulmonary, respiratory, or other disease, or cerebrovascular accident or myocardial infarction suffered by a worker is an injury only if the accident is the prevailing factor in causing the resulting medical condition;

(5) The terms "injury" and "personal injuries" shall mean violence to the physical structure of the body and to the personal property which is used to make up the physical structure of the body, such as

artificial dentures, artificial limbs, glass eyes, eyeglasses, and other prostheses which are placed in or on the body to replace the physical structure and such disease or infection as naturally results therefrom. These terms shall in no case except as specifically provided in this chapter be construed to include occupational disease in any form, nor shall they be construed to include any contagious or infectious disease contracted during the course of the employment, nor shall they include death due to natural causes occurring while the worker is at work.

In addition to these definitions, the legislature also provided the following additional legislation contained in section 287.020.10 RSMo, which reads as follows:

In applying the provisions of this chapter, it is the intent of the legislature to reject and abrogate earlier case law interpretations on the meaning of or definition of "accident", "occupational disease", arising out of", and in the course of the employment" to include, but not be limited to, holdings in: Bennett v. Columbia Health Care and Rehabilitation, 80 S.W. 3d 524 (Mo.App. W.D. 2002); Kasl v. Bristol Care, Inc., 984 S.W.2d 852 (Mo.banc 1999); and Drewes v. TWA, 984 S.W.2d 512 (Mo.banc 1999) and all cases citing, interpreting, applying, or following those cases.

Lastly, sections 287.800 .1 and .2 RSMo, respectively, provide as follows:

287.800. 1. Administrative law judges, associate administrative law judges, legal advisors, the labor and industrial relations commission, the division of workers' compensation, and any reviewing courts shall construe the provisions of this chapter strictly.

  1. Administrative law judges, associate administrative law judges, legal advisors, the labor and industrial relations commission, and the division of workers' comp

Full decision text continues in the plain-text archive copy.

Related Decisions

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's award allowing workers' compensation benefits for Robin Smith's left arm injury sustained on March 17, 2010, while employed as a commercial vehicle operator. The claimant was determined to have permanent and total disability resulting from the compensable work-related injury.

arm5,024 words
affirmed

The Commission affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision denying workers' compensation benefits to truck driver Aleck Fineman for an alleged left arm injury. The court found that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment, making it non-compensable under Missouri law.

arm4,908 words

The Commission affirmed the administrative law judge's award of workers' compensation benefits for Roger Patton's work-related left arm injury sustained while unloading timbers from a delivery truck on April 4, 2005, which resulted in a bicep tendon rupture. The award granted 30% permanent partial disability of the left arm at the elbow level, though a dissenting opinion argued for a finding of permanent total disability based on the severity and ongoing debilitating nature of the injury.

arm7,795 words
reversed

The LIRC reversed the administrative law judge's award that found the employee's right arm injury combined with a pre-existing left eye vision condition (amblyopia) to create enhanced disability qualifying for Second Injury Fund compensation. The commission denied compensation, finding the employee failed to meet the statutory requirements for claiming enhanced permanent partial disability benefits.

arm1,777 words
affirmed

The Missouri LIRC affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision denying all workers' compensation benefits to Richard A. Fuller for a torn left bicep tendon sustained on October 9, 2007, because he failed to provide written notice of the injury within 30 days as required by statute. A dissenting opinion argued the notice requirement was applied too strictly given the employee's lack of sophistication about workers' compensation procedures and the employer's failure to properly notify him of the notice requirement.

arm6,857 words