William Cochran v. Honeywell

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 May 14, 2008. The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Mark Siedlik, issued May 14, 2008, 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 2nd day of February 2009. LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION William F. Ringer, Chairman

Alice A. Bartlett, Member

John J. Hickey, Member Attest:

Secretary

Employee: William Cochran

Injury No: 05-138598

Dependents: N/A

Employer: Honeywell

Additional Party: N/A

Insurer: Ace American Insurance Co.

Hearing Date: March 11, 2008

Briefs Filed: April 11, 2008

Checked by: MSS/cg

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: series to $1 / 7 / 05; series to 1 / 6 / 06$
5. State location where accident occurred or occupational disease was contracted: Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri
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: repetitive use of bilateral upper extremities
12. Did accident or occupational disease cause death? No

Date of death? N/A

1. Part(s) of body injured by accident or occupational disease: right wrist, left wrist, left shoulder
2. Nature and extent of any permanent disability: 20 % disability to the body as a whole.
3. Compensation paid to date for temporary disability: 0
4. Value necessary medical aid paid to date by employer/insurer? N/A
5. Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer/insurer? 43,054.56
6. Employee's average weekly wages: sufficient for maximum
7. Weekly compensation rate: $\ 354.05
8. Method wages computation: By stipulation

Benefits Currently Due: \12,704.78, plus \ 813.00 out of pocket medical (covering both injuries).

Ongoing Benefits

Medical Care: Past medical: $\ 43,054.56, covering both injuries.

Total Award.

permanent partial disability benefits and

apportionment of

medical expenses. Includes medical expenses attributed to both injuries.

1. Second Injury Fund liability: to be determined at a later date.

Employee: William Cochran

Injury No: 05-138598

Dependents: N/A

Employer: Honeywell

Additional Party: N/A

Insurer: Ace American Insurance Co.

Hearing Date: March 11, 2008

Exhibit B - A stipulated submission of medical records relating to Employee's treatment.

Exhibit C - An itemization of medical bills incurred for the treatment of all of the Employee's alleged claims and supportive materials provided by the various providers.

The Employer called two witnesses, Craig Miller and Dale Morgan, who testified at the hearing. In addition, Employer presented the following exhibits, all of which were admitted into evidence without objection:

Exhibit 1 - a CD-ROM containing video of Employee and Mr. Morgan demonstrating one of Employee's work tasks.

Exhibit 2 - Dr. Clymer's report submitted under R.S.Mo. Section 287.210.7 on December 15, 2006 and received without objection.

Based on the above exhibits and the testimony of Cochran, Mr. Miller and Mr. Morgan, I make the following findings:

Employee, William Cochran, is a long time Employee of Honeywell working almost his entire tenure as a fire protection specialist. His duties encompass all manner of fire protection activities as well as maintenance of the fire control system at Honeywell.

Employee's duties included maintenance of all of the water valves throughout the plant. Until approximately 2002, Employee would assist in an annual value inspection, opening every valve in the plant and count the turns and then close each valve, again counting the turns. This activity was performed by Employee and other members of his department until approximately 2002 when union rules required a pipe fitter to perform the inspection, accompanied by a member of the fire protection service. After that change, Employee would accompany the pipe fitter on the annual inspection and would occasionally help with some of the valves when the pipe fitter became fatigued. In addition to that task, known as the operational value inspection, Employee performed a number of other tasks requiring vigorous upper extremity use including main drain testing on an annual basis, flow testing, which was performed quarterly, fire hose maintenance requiring the spooling and unspooling of all of the fire hoses, hydrant maintenance, maintenance on fire doors, manual pull stations, as well as administrative duties requiring daily routine typing and data entry.

Employee began complaining of numbness in his hands and arms to his supervisor in approximately May of 2004. After meeting with members of the safety department and receiving no treatment, Employee sought treatment with his own doctor, Dr. Bogner. Dr. Bogner referred Employee to Dr. Pryor for diagnostic testing which identified carpal tunnel syndrome in both of his hands. Employee continued to follow up with his supervisors and the Honeywell plant doctor, Dr. Bennett. It is suggested in the medical records that Honeywell's position was that Employee's symptoms were caused by diabetes and not the repetitive nature of his work. Dr. Pryor had previously conducted testing eliminating diabetes as the cause of Employee's symptoms. Regardless, Employer continued to deny benefits. Employee was then referred to Dr. Carroll who ultimately performed carpal tunnel syndrome surgery on Employee's left hand on January 7, 2005 and his right hand on March 25, 2005.

In approximately September of 2004, Employee began complaining of symptoms in his left shoulder. He testified that many of his work assignments, especially those dealing with sprinkler system maintenance, required overhead activities. He had previously developed this condition in his right shoulder in 2001 but elected to treat it privately and not make a workers' compensation claim. When the same activities began

causing the similar symptoms in his left shoulder, Employee reported it to the safety department. The response of the safety department was to videotape Employee and Dale Morgan on September 22, 2005 conducting an annual valve inspection. As this took place after the assignment of pipe fitters to this task, Employee's role

consisted of locking and unlocking the chains protecting the valves. Despite the wide range of other job tasks testified to by Employee and his supervisor, Craig Miller, it was apparently this videotape which led to the conclusion by Honeywell that Employee's job tasks were not mechanically competent to cause the injury he claims.

As a result of this denial, Employee continued to treat with Dr. Carroll who had previously operated on Employee's right shoulder and bilateral wrists and he ultimately performed arthroscopic surgery on January 6, 2006, on Employee's left shoulder.

Employee sustained little or no lost time as a result of his two carpal tunnel surgeries and his left shoulder surgery. He testified he was able to return to accommodated light duty immediately following each surgery.

Following Employee's return to work, he retained counsel and filed his workers' compensation claims on October 4, 2004. He then retained his current counsel and filed his current claims on February 15, 2006, dismissing his original claim without prejudice on December 14, 2006.

At the request of his attorney, Employee was seen by Dr. P. Brent Koprivica on May 16, 2006. The Claimant apparently indicated to Dr. Koprivica a history of ongoing problems with his left shoulder and bilateral wrists. Dr. Koprivica's report indicates that the Employee described multiple upper extremity use activities, "especially the opening and