We first note that the administrative law judge made certain errors in the Findings of Fact. On page 5, the findings suggest that employee had gone through a divorce around 2004. The record indicates employee's last divorce prior to the hearing occurred in approximately 1991. Also, on pages 6 and 7, the findings indicate that employee stopped using the slide hammer at work in 2004. But the record reveals he last actually used this tool in 2006.
These factual changes, however, did not significantly impact our opinion in this matter. Employee's divorce was just one of a great number of non-work-related factors that may have led to his depression. It was not a factor upon which any opinion substantially relied. With respect to the error regarding the slide hammer, neither of the experts upon whom the administrative law judge relied used this erroneous fact. At the time they made their evaluations, it seems to have been assumed that employee had continued to use the slide hammer throughout the term of his employment. The fact that employer discontinued use of the slide hammer in 2006
All rights reserved.
Injury No.: 07-098360
Employee: Randy Doran
was not learned until employee testified during the hearing. If anything, this change in fact cuts against employee's experts and position.
Our opinion in this matter turns on our assessment of the credibility of the parties' medical experts. Drs. Volarich and Haupt provided medical opinions concerning employee's rotator cuff injury. Dr. Volarich is board certified regarding osteopathic and nuclear medicine, while Dr. Haupt is board certified concerning orthopedic surgery. We are persuaded that Dr. Haupt's certification is more relevant to the type of shoulder injury from which employee suffered.
Furthermore, Dr. Volarich was initially unaware (because employee did not tell him) that employee had not used the slide hammer at work since 2006. He was also misled as to the percentage of time that employee was using this apparatus at work. Dr. Volarich admitted that such changes in or withholding of facts could affect his opinion.
Lastly, it is apparent that Dr. Haupt had a more detailed and accurate knowledge of the actual workings of the slide hammer and the bodily movements involved in the use of this tool, as well as the amount of time employee was actually using the slide hammer. Dr. Haupt provided very specific reasons why he felt it unlikely that employee's use of the slide hammer caused the rotator cuff tear.
For the same reasons that the administrative law judge expressed, we also found the opinion of Dr. Wolfgram more persuasive than that of Dr. Markway. Dr. Markway expressed confusion when asked to explain certain aspects of how she formulated her ratings. Dr. Wolfgram is a physician and psychiatrist, whereas Dr. Markway is not a physician. And Dr. Markway relied on Dr. Volarich's opinion, whose opinion we have found to be less reliable. Even Dr. Markway admitted that employee had a great number of non-work-related factors in his life that would have built up to cause depression.
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).
As indicated above, though, we agree with the administrative law judge's determination that the evidence from Drs. Haupt and Wolfgram should be given greater weight (than the evidence from Drs. Volarich and Markway) because their information most logically interprets the facts connected with this matter.