Ann Chepely v. Meramec Group, Inc.

Employee: Ann K. Chepely

Injury No. 07-102348

Before the<br>DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION<br>Department of Labor and Industrial Relations of Missouri<br>Jefferson City, Missouri

Dependents: N/A

Employer: Meramec Group, Inc.

Additional Party: Second Injury Fund (left open)

Insurer: Self-insured/Cannon Cochran Management Services, Inc.

Hearing Date: October 29, 2008

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: September 30, 2007.
5. State location where accident occurred or occupational disease was contracted: Franklin 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? N/A (see award).
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 (employer is self-insured c/o Cannon Cochran Management Services, Inc.).
11. Describe work employee was doing and how accident occurred or occupational disease contracted:

The claimant worked on a factory line where she worked with molds and then kneaded the foam product before trimming and packing the product.

1. Did accident or occupational disease cause death? No. Date of death? N/A.

1. Part(s) of body injured by accident or occupational disease: Left shoulder.
2. Nature and extent of any permanent disability: N/A.
3. Compensation paid to-date for temporary disability: None.
4. Value necessary medical aid paid to date by employer/insurer? None.
5. Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer/insurer? N/A.
6. Employee's average weekly wages: N/A.
7. Weekly compensation rate: N/A.

- Method of wages computation: N/A.

- Amount of compensation payable: N/A.

1. Second Injury Fund liability: Left open.
2. Future medical awarded: Yes, see award.

Said payments to begin immediately and to be subject to modification and review as provided by law. This award is only temporary or partial, is subject to further order, and the proceedings are hereby continued and the case kept open until a final award can be made.

IF THIS AWARD IS NOT COMPLIED WITH, THE AMOUNT AWARDED HEREIN MAY BE DOUBLED IN THE FINAL AWARD, IF SUCH FINAL AWARD IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS TEMPORARY AWARD.

The compensation awarded to the claimant shall be subject to a lien in the amount of 20 % of all payments hereunder in favor of the following attorney for necessary legal services rendered to the claimant: Mark Moreland. However, it is the understanding of the Administrative Law Judge that Mr. Moreland is deferring this fee until the final award hearing.

Employee: Ann K. Chepely

Injury No: 07-102348

Before the

DIVISION OF WORKERS'

COMPENSATION

Department of Labor and Industrial Relations of Missouri

Jefferson City, Missouri

On October 29, 2008, the claimant and the employer/insurer appeared for a temporary award hearing. The claimant, Ann K. Chepely, was represented by Mark E. Moreland. The employer/insurer was represented by Michael F. Banahan. Mary Ann Lindsey, also counsel for the employer/insurer, observed the hearing. The Second Injury Fund (SIF) did not participate in the hearing, and issues related to the SIF are deferred until the final award hearing. The claimant testified on her own behalf. John Crnkovich testified on behalf of the employer/insurer. Dr. William Sedgwick and Dr. Michael Milne testified by deposition. The employer/insurer submitted its brief on November 12, 2008. Counsel for the employee requested several extensions of time to submit a brief, which were granted. The employee submitted its brief on December 10, 2008.

The parties stipulated to the following:

- On or about September 30, 2007, the claimant was an employee of Meramec Group, Inc. (the employer).

- The employer was operating subject to the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Law.

- The employer’s liability for workers’ compensation was self-insured, in care of Cannon Cochran Management Services, Inc.

- The Missouri Division of Workers’ Compensation has jurisdiction, and venue in Franklin County is proper.

- A Claim for Compensation was filed within the time prescribed by law.

At the hearing, the parties agreed that the issues to be resolved in this proceeding are as follows:

- Whether the claimant sustained an occupational disease that arose out of and in the course of employment.

- Medical causation.

- Whether the claimant’s employment was a prevailing factor in her need for additional medical treatment.

- Notice.

On behalf of the claimant, the following exhibits were entered into evidence without objection:

The employer/insurer offered the following exhibits, and they were admitted into the record without objection:

Note: All marks, handwritten notations, highlighting, or tabs on the exhibits were present at the time the documents were admitted into evidence.

Based on the above exhibits and the testimony presented at the hearing, I make the following findings:

- The claimant began her employment with Meramec Group, Inc. (the employer), on September 22, 2003. The claimant is approximately 5 feet 3 inches tall, and weighs about 170 pounds.

- The claimant works on the first work shift, which runs between 7:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. She has a 20-minute lunch break and two 10-minute breaks. The claimant was laid off during the period of October 2006 to January 2007. When she returned to work in January 2007, she worked for the Industrial Products Division of the employer. This division makes mats, arms for computer chairs, and Omnis. An Omni is a foam cushion in which a person's face is placed during back surgery.

- On or about September 30, 2007, the claimant was working on a manufacturing line that was produced the foam Omnis. The employer fulfilled two contracts for producing Omnis in 2007, and each contract took approximately four weeks to complete.

- While on the Omni line, the claimant's duties included spraying the molds that make the products, closing the lids on the molds, and operating a panel that places the material in the molds. Both the spraying and the opening of the molds are accomplished by the claimant pushing a button; a robot/machine does the actual spraying and opening. When the molding process was completed, the claimant would push the Omni in on all sides to loosen it from the mold. Then, she would manually remove the products from the molds. Next, she would knead the Omnis to make them softer. The claimant would also trim and pack the products.

- The kneading action used in making Omnis involved pushing and squeezing the products with both hands. The claimant testified credibly that the kneading required her to exert significant force. She performed this task on a work table; one of the tables hit her a little above her belly button, and the other hit her a little below her belly button. She would push down on the Omnis, often while standing on tip toes, as she was leaning over the work table. She would use both arms and shoulders as she pushed down on the front and back of the Omni, and then she would turn it over and push down on the front and back again. The claimant had to be careful not to squeeze too hard or she could leave a handprint on the Omni, making it unusable.

- Making Omnis does not involve overhead work or work at the shoulder level.

- The claimant's quota was to make 30 boxes of Omnis per shift. There are six Omnis to a box. Thus, the total number of Omnis she was required to make each shift was 180, but she would often make up to 200. With the help of a coworker, the claimant usually made between 29 and 33 boxes of Omnis a day.

- While making Omnis in September 2007, the claimant worked with co-worker Kathy Whitworth. During the first three and one-half weeks of the four-week production period, the claimant would knead all four Omnis from each batch, while Ms. Whitworth sprayed the molds and trimmed excess from the finished Omnis. This made production go faster. This division of labor was by agreement of the claimant and Ms. Whitworth.

- After the initial three and one-half weeks, the claimant and Ms. Whitworth altered their habit so that they each kneaded two Omnis per batch of four.

- In mid-September 2007, the claimant began to experience bilateral shoulder problems. She felt that the left shoulder symptoms were caused by the process of making Omnis.

- On October 18, 2007, the claimant told her supervisor, John Crnkovich, that her left shoulder was hurting from making the Omnis for so long. That same day, she filled out an Employee Injury Report. She listed the date of injury as October 2, 2007. She indicated that while her arms had hurt for a while, she had thought that they would get better. In her Claim for Compensation, the claimant listed the date of injury as September 2007.

- By October 18, 2007, the claimant's right shoulder complaints had disappeared. Her left shoulder, however, still hurt.

- The employer/insurer sent the claimant to see Dr. Sandra Tate for an independent medical exam in November 2007. Dr. Tate felt that there was nothing in the claimant's job duties that appeared to be a prevailing factor in her current symptoms. She did not provide treatment

- The claimant therefore went to her own doctor, Dr. Matthew Tiefenbrunn of Family First Clinic