Based on a comprehensive review of the substantial and competent evidence, including Employee's deposition testimony, the expert medical opinions and depositions, the medical records, the vocational opinions and depositions, and the testimony of the other witnesses at hearing, as well as my personal observations of the witnesses at hearing, I find:
1) Deborah Gervich, Employee's widow, testified she and Employee were married on February 25, 1978. They continued to be married up until the time of Employee's death on April 5, 2009, as a result of metastatic pancreatic cancer. She testified that she was dependent on Employee for support. She had been the victim of an assault approximately 10 years ago. After that assault and before his April 6, 2006 injury, Employee basically did everything around the house for her, including cooking, cleaning and shopping. After Employee's injury on April 6, 2006, her children did all of those things since her husband was not able to do them anymore.
2) Employee (Exhibit A), at the time of his death, was a 55-year-old career pipefitter, who spent almost 30 years total in that profession. During his time in the union, Pipefitters' Local \#562, he was employed by a number of different companies in that capacity up until April 29, 2006, which was the last time he worked. He officially retired in October 2006.
3) In terms of his education, Employee graduated from McCluer High School in 1972. After high school he took a few general classes at a community college, but he never received any type of degree. He also took classes in welding and pipefitting through the union. According to vocational tests he was given by Mr. England, Employee could read at a high school level and do arithmetic at the sixth-grade level. Mr. England suggested that these "would be adequate for a variety of vocational alternatives." Employee admitted that he never had any problems with reading, writing or math in high school or college. Employee never served in the military.
4) In addition to working as a pipefitter, from 1984 until 1996, Employee and his wife owned a furniture store. Mrs. Gervich said she was the "brains" while her husband did the loading, unloading and deliveries. Depending on the hours he was working as a pipefitter, Employee testified that he worked at the furniture store before or after his pipefitting jobs, and on weekends.
5) Medical treatment records from the Plumbers' \& Pipefitters' Local 562 Health Center (Exhibit M) document treatment Employee received at that facility for various conditions from December 15, 1981 through July 24, 2006. Although there are a number of visits for various illnesses and conditions, the most pertinent treatment to this case dealt with his diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and prior neck complaints. On February 11, 1997, Employee presented with an acute onset of right neck, right shoulder, and right elbow pain. He was diagnosed with acute cervical radiculopathy and given some Darvocet for pain. He continued refilling that medication up through March 4, 1997. Although the records are somewhat difficult to decipher, it appears his next visit for neck complaints occurred on July 25, 2002.
At that time Employee was complaining of a pinched nerve in his right neck and right upper extremity (RUE) area which had been bothering him for 30 days. He was diagnosed with cervical radiculopathy. The doctor suggested that he have an MRI and physical therapy. On August 1, 2002, the note indicates that the Imaging Center was contacted and they could not do an MRI because of the patient's size. The next reference to neck complaints is on September 30, 2005 when Employee called and reported a pinched nerve with pain in the neck and radiating down the right arm, identical to what he experienced in 2002. He was given a Medrol Dosepack and Skelaxin. By October 3, 2005, he called and reported he was feeling much better, but then on October 6, 2005, he was seeking a refill of the Medrol Dosepack. The note on October 6, 2005 indicates that Employee needs to be seen by an "ortho" (orthopedic doctor). Despite being on a course of medication and treatment for his diabetes, by January 30, 2006, he was diagnosed with diabetic neuropathy as a result of his complaints of burning and tingling in his feet. It appears Employee maintained poor control of his hypertension and diabetes throughout these records.
6) Chiropractic treatment records from Hoffman Chiropractic Clinic (Exhibit O) document visits Employee had at that facility from July 1, 2002 through August 27, 2002 for neck pain and pain into the right shoulder and down the right arm. Employee had 18 treatments over that 2-month period and was diagnosed intermittently with cervical nerve root compression or cervical neuralgia.
7) Medical records from DePaul Health Center (Exhibit N) document Employee's admission at that facility on July 17, 2002 for a complaint of neck and right arm pain and tingling. Employee noted the onset of the complaints about 3 weeks prior to admission and stated that the onset was gradual. He described the pain as coming from the neck and radiating into the right arm. He stated that he had had similar symptoms previously and had sought treatment from a chiropractor who told him he had a pinched nerve in the neck. Cervical spine X-rays were normal. Employee was diagnosed with an acute cervical strain and right shoulder sprain.
8) Employee was working as a pipefitter for Condaire, Inc. (Employer) at the time of his April 6, 2006 injury. He had been working for Employer for approximately six months before he was injured. He was working approximately 60 -hour weeks on the second shift for Employer, and was making $\ 32.00 per hour. His job for Employer included getting into a basket suspended from a rig and being lowered down into a pit where they would install hangers and pipe on a vertical wall. The job required them to drill holes in the wall with guns, install the platforms that the pipe would sit on, and then install the pipe on the platforms. In addition to the drilling, there was also some welding involved in this work. Although the pipe was lowered down on cranes, he estimated that he would have to lift between 100 and 200 pounds as a part of his job for Employer.
9) Medical records from Concentra Medical Centers (Exhibit I) document treatment Employee received there for a toe injury on February 28, 2006. The first visit at that facility on that same date contained a description of Employee sustaining a toe laceration at work from stepping on a piece of steel. The toe wound was dressed and
he was released to light duty work. After one other follow-up exam on March 3, 2006, Employee was discharged from care and sent back to regular duty work as of March 8, 2006.
10) On April 6, 2006, Employee was being lowered down into the pit in the basket and was trying to ensure that the basket would be brought down out of the way of the other rigs coming down there. He got out of the basket and pulled it out of the way of the rebar. As he turned around, he tripped over some conduit and fell to the ground, striking his head on some other conduit pipe that was sticking out of the ground. He split his head open and blood was gushing out of his head. He did not lose consciousness. Employee stood up, got back in the basket, and told his partner to bring the basket up. Employee did not finish work that day because his supervisor took him to the hospital for treatment.
11) The medical treatment records from St. Anthony's Medical Center (Exhibit F) document the treatment Employee received at that facility's emergency department on April 6, 2006. The emergency department admitting form shows Employee's wife was employed by a "deli." Employee provided a consistent history of falling over a pipe coming out of the ground at work and sustaining a large laceration in the middle of his forehead. On physical examination, he was found to have a 4.1 cm laceration on his forehead, but there was no neck tenderness, no CN (2-12) [cranial nerve 2-12] deficits, and no motor weakness or sensory deficits. He was diagnosed with a facial laceration, received sutures to close the laceration and was discharged home in good condition.
12) Medical treatment records from Unity Corporate Health (Exhibit G) reveal that Employee first visited with Dr. Sun at that facility on April 7, 2006 following his injury the prior day at work. He described a consistent history of the injury at work. He complained of a headache, a "foggy" feeling, and that he is easily forgetting things. He voiced no complaints about his neck and, in fact, his neck examination was negative for tenderness. He had good flexibility in his back. X-rays of the neck and facial bones were negative for fracture. However, his cervical x-rays revealed degenerative disc disease with hypertrophic spurring and foraminal narrowing at C67. While getting the X-rays, Employee began complaining of dizziness and lightheadedness, so Dr. Sun sent Employee back to the Emergency Room for additional tests.
13) Employee returned to the St. Anthony's Medical Center Emergency Department (Exhibit F) that day, April 7, 2006, because of a complaint of dizziness since his fall the prior day. On the physical examination, Employee denied neck pain or tenderness, headache, memory loss, or loss of strength or feeling in his arms, legs or torso. A CT scan of the head was negative. He was diagnosed with a minor head injury and again discharged home.
14) Employee returned to Dr. Sun on April 10, 2006 indicating that he had gone back to light duty work (sitting duty) but he still had a headache, facial pain, some dizziness and some forgetfulness. There were again no neck complaints and a negative
examination of the neck. He was diagnosed with a facial laceration and facial contusion which was improving.
15) For the first time on April 14, 2006, Employee complained to Dr. Sun (Exhibit G) that he was "still" feeling numbness in both thumbs, and he felt like the pain was coming from his neck, through his shoulders, into his thumbs. The physical examination again revealed no tenderness in the neck, good range of motion in the back and both shoulders, and normal symmetric strength in both shoulders. Employee was also still voicing complaints of dizziness, and said he is unable to drive himself. Dr. Sun recommended a referral to a neurosurgeon specializing in the spine for further evaluation and treatment because of the residual dizziness. Dr. Sun examined Employee one last time on April 21, 2006 at which time Employee had the same complaints and basically the same examination results as the prior visit. Dr. Sun continued to recommend a referral to a spine specialist for the dizziness and numbness into his thumbs. Employee was still working light duty at that time.
16) Pursuant to Dr. Sun's recommendation, Employee was referred to Dr. Daniel Kitchens at Cardinal Neurosurgery \& Spine, Inc. (Exhibit K) for a neurosurgical consultation on May 4, 2006. He reported a consistent history of injury, but he complained of neck pain and pain into his right shoulder, right arm, right hand, and his index and long fingers of the right hand, as well as some numbness into the index and long fingers of his left hand. He also reported some dizziness, headaches and forgetfulness. There was no suggestion of Employee having had any prior problems with his neck. On physical examination, Dr. Kitchens found right triceps weakness. Dr. Kitchens suggested additional workup including an MRI of the cervical spine, since Employee's complaints were suggestive of a C7 radiculopathy.
17) Employee had the MRI of the cervical spine performed at Metro Imaging (Exhibit J) on May 17, 2006. The radiologist at Metro Imaging, Dr. Richard Koch, read the MRI as showing degenerative hypertrophic ridging at C6-7, which effaces the cerebral spinal fluid pathway but does not flatten the cervical cord, and a lesser amount of degenerative hypertrophic change present at C3-4. He identified no focal disc protrusion, and no intrinsic abnormality involving the cervical cord.
18) When Dr. Kitchens (Exhibit K) reviewed the MRI at Employee's next visit on May 23, 2006, he believed it showed a broad-based disc herniation at C6-7 with some cervical spondylosis at that same level. He also believed there was some spinal cord compression. He disagreed with the radiologist's reading of the MRI. Dr. Kitchens discussed Employee's treatment options including continued conservative treatment versus an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at C6-7. Employee wished to continue with conservative treatment including medications and physical therapy.
19) Dr. Richard Koch (Exhibit J) again reviewed the MRI on May 23, 2006 and confirmed that his original reading was accurate. He believed the abnormality at C6-7 was more consistent with degenerative hypertrophic spurring because of the signal findings and because it was broad and extended across the entire circumference of the vertebral body.
20) Employee then began a course of physical therapy at PRORehab (Exhibit H) on May 26, 2006. He attended a number of physical therapy appointments and, at best, voiced only a temporary lessening of complaints after therapy, but noted that the complaints would then return. He was discharged from physical therapy on June 20, 2006, with the physical therapist noting that his level of pain, quality of movement patterns, and level of activity/work was unchanged from the beginning of the course of therapy. He achieved no functional goals during his course of therapy.
21) When Employee returned to Dr. Kitchens (Exhibit K) on June 21, 2006, Dr. Kitchens noted that the physical therapy had basically had no effect on his condition. Dr. Kitchens again discussed the surgical option, but Employee apparently did not want to pursue that option. Instead, Dr. Kitchens placed permanent restrictions on Employee's ability to work, including no lifting over 20 pounds and no overhead work, and gave him a prescription for a muscle relaxer and non-narcotic pain reliever. He also released Employee from his care at that point.
22) On September 14, 2006, Dr. Kitchens (Exhibit K) rated Employee as having 5\% permanent partial disability of the body as a whole referable to the neck related to the cervical disc herniation and cervical injury. He related the cervical disc herniation and subsequent complaints to the injury on April 6, 2006 when Employee fell at work. He also noted that Employee had recovered without the need for surgical intervention.
23) Employer paid medical benefits totaling $\ 6,102.17 for treatment in connection with this injury. Employer also paid TTD benefits from May 3, 2006 until June 20, 2006 (7 3/7 weeks) at a rate of $\ 696.97, or $\ 5,177.50.
24) Dr. Robert Poetz (Exhibit 3), a board certified family practitioner, evaluated Employee on October 24, 2006 at the request of Employee's attorney. Employer took Dr. Poetz's deposition on April 7, 2009 to make his opinions in this case admissible at hearing. Although Dr. Poetz was Employee's first rating physician in this case, Employer/Insurer submitted his deposition testimony in support of their case. Dr. Poetz reviewed the medical treatment records, performed a physical examination and issued a report dated December 5, 2006. Employee provided a consistent history of the injury at work and a consistent recitation of his complaints. On the physical examination, Dr. Poetz found decreased pinprick sensation at the mid finger bilaterally, markedly restricted range of motion in the neck, and radicular pain down the C6-7 nerve root distribution bilaterally. Referable to the April 6, 2006 accident, Dr. Poetz diagnosed a closed head injury with facial laceration, and a cervical strain with a possible herniated disc at C6-7 and exacerbation of cervical degenerative disc disease. He diagnosed pre-existing hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and cervical degenerative disc disease. He rated Employee as having 20\% permanent partial disability of the body as a whole referable to the head and 25 % permanent partial disability of the body as a whole referable to the cervical spine as a result of the April 6, 2006 accident. He also rated pre-existing permanent partial disabilities of 10 % of the body as a whole for the hypertension, 20 % of the body as a whole for the diabetes mellitus, and 10 % of the body as a whole for the cervical spine degenerative disc
disease. He further opined that Employee was permanently and totally disabled as a result of the combination of the April 6, 2006 injuries and Employee's pre-existing conditions.
25) Dr. Poetz testified consistent with his report and the opinions expressed above. He explained during his testimony how he arrived at the percentages of disability that he assessed for the pre-existing hypertension and diabetes, and basically explained how they would affect Employee's ability to work. Thus, he essentially explained how those conditions were hindrances or obstacles to employment. He did admit that leading up to the accident on April 6, 2006, Employee was working full duty, with no specific restrictions, and without missing time from work as a result of these preexisting conditions. He also noted, however, that Employee's hypertension was not well-controlled with the medications he was taking, and the prior records did document symptoms consistent with diabetic neuropathy in the feet.
26) Employee sought further treatment from Dr. Stephen Schmidt at Pain Management Services (Exhibit L). Dr. Schmidt first examined Employee on April 17, 2007. The medical records contain a consistent history of the injury at work and of continued complaints of neck pain and symptoms into his arms. Dr. Schmidt found that Employee had neck pain with arm pain and numbness into the C7 distribution. Dr. Schmidt diagnosed right cervical radiculopathy. Dr. Schmidt recommended a right C7 selective epidural steroid injection under fluoroscopic guidance. That procedure was carried out on April 18, 2007. When Employee followed up on May 9, 2007, he reported that he obtained 25 % improvement in his pain complaints following the injection. Dr. Schmidt noted that they could not perform any more of these injections because he was difficult to sedate the last time, required a large amount of medication, and even then continued to move and have trouble with his airway. In short, it was not safe to sedate him anymore. Employee was continued on medications, but no further injections were scheduled.
27) Dr. Russell Cantrell (Exhibit 1), who is board certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation, evaluated Employee on January 7, 2008 at the request of Employer's attorney. Employer took Dr. Cantrell's deposition on January 20, 2009 to make his opinions in this case admissible at hearing. Dr. Cantrell admitted that he is not a neurosurgeon and does not operate on the spine as a part of his practice, but he would not necessarily defer to a neurosurgeon regarding the need for spine surgery. Dr. Cantrell reviewed the medical treatment records, performed a physical examination and issued a report dated January 7, 2008. Employee provided a consistent history of the injury at work and a consistent description of his complaints. On the physical examination, Dr. Cantrell found limited range of motion in the cervical spine, tenderness to palpation, weakness which was not in a myotomal distribution, and no paraspinal muscle spasms. In reviewing the pre-existing medical records and the treatment records from immediately following the April 6, 2006 injury, Dr. Cantrell found the prior cervical and radicular complaints for which Employee had received periodic treatment, and he also noted the absence of any frank cervical or radicular complaints after the April 6, 2006 accident until the visit at Unity Corporate Health on April 14, 2006. Dr. Cantrell reviewed the cervical MRI from May 17, 2006 and he
found no evidence of a disc herniation, but he did note degenerative disc disease at C3-4 and C6-7.
28) Dr. Cantrell opined that Employee sustained a head contusion with associated forehead laceration as a result of the April 6, 2006 injury. He rated Employee as having 2 % permanent partial disability of the body as a whole referable to the healed forehead laceration related to the April 6, 2006 injury. Dr. Cantrell did not believe that the work injury was the prevailing factor in causing Employee's neck pain and radicular arm pain. He believed those complains were related to Employee's preexisting degenerative disc disease for which he rated Employee as having 8\% permanent partial disability of the body as a whole referable to the cervical spine. He opined that Employee needed no work restrictions and no further treatment on account of the work accident, but restrictions based on his pre-existing cervical degenerative disc disease would be appropriate.
29) Dr. Thomas Musich (Exhibit C), a board certified family practitioner, evaluated Employee on March 7, 2008 at the request of Employee's attorney. Employee took Dr. Musich's deposition on January 27, 2009 to make his opinions in this case admissible at hearing. Dr. Musich reviewed the medical treatment records, performed a physical examination and issued a report dated March 7, 2008. On the physical examination, Dr. Musich found no upper extremity weakness or atrophy, nor any other objective physical finding consistent with cervical radiculopathy. However, he did find paresthesia in the hands consistent with cervical radiculopathy. He agreed that based on his review of the MRIs and his review of the reports of Drs. Koch and Kitchens, he did not believe the MRI showed an acute lesion at C6-7 impinging on a nerve root. In that report, Dr. Musich opined that the injury of April 6, 2006 was the prevailing factor in the development of acute cervical symptomology, including chronic cervical pain, severe limitation of cervical motion, and bilateral upper extremity radiculopathy, right greater than left. He agreed with the work restrictions placed on Employee by other physicians such as Dr. Kitchens. He also agreed that Claimant was a poor surgical candidate given his morbid obesity, diabetes, hypertension and suspected sleep apnea. Dr. Musich did not believe Employee would ever be able to return to his work as a pipefitter. He further opined that due to Employee's post-traumatic symptoms, his ongoing need for analgesic medication, and his activity restrictions, Employee was permanently and totally disabled. Dr. Musich opined that Employee's inability to work was the sole result of his present condition from the April 6, 2006 injury by itself. While there was no doubt that Employee had pre-existing morbid obesity, diabetes, diabetic neuropathy, and hypertension, Dr. Musich opined that none of those conditions represented a hindrance or obstacle to his employment as a pipefitter prior to the April 6, 2006 injury.
30) The deposition of Dr. Daniel Kitchens (Exhibit D) was taken by Employee on February 11, 2009 to make his opinions in this case admissible at trial. Although Dr. Kitchens was Employer's authorized treating physician in this case, Employee submitted his deposition testimony in support of his case. Dr. Kitchens is a board certified neurological surgeon. He testified consistent with his reports and opinions enumerated above. Most importantly, Dr. Kitchens noted that he had not reviewed
the initial medical treatment records following this accident and also had not reviewed any of Employee's pre-existing medical treatment records on his neck at the time he had issued his initial reports in this matter. However, prior to his deposition testimony, Dr. Kitchens had now reviewed all of those medical records. Dr. Kitchens quite clearly testified that none of those records changed any of the opinions he initially formulated in this case.
31) He agreed that Employee had apparently had some prior neck and right arm complaints from the pre-existing cervical spondylosis, but he was convinced that the disc herniation at C6-7 and the subsequent complaints were related to the injury at work on April 6, 2006. He reached this conclusion by considering the timing of the symptoms in conjunction with the progression of the symptoms of his spinal cord. He also considered the mechanism of injury and found that the axial loading from striking his head while falling produces the type of force and direction of force likely to cause a disc herniation. Further, he noted that the C6-7 disc is the one most prone to this type of pressure, so a disc herniation at C6-7 is relatively common given this mechanism of injury. He explained that Claimant's complaints, as well as the finding of right triceps weakness, were consistent with the finding on the MRI of the disc herniation at C6-7. Although he did not provide a numerical rating of disability for the pre-existing neck problems, he suggested that Employee would have a small amount of disability, if any, in the neck prior to his injury as a result of the cervical spondylosis since his symptoms were sporadic.
32) Employee was evaluated by Mr. James England (Exhibit E), a vocational counselor, on January 9, 2007, after which Mr. England issued a report dated January 15, 2007. Employee took Mr. England's deposition on March 10, 2009 to make his opinions in this case admissible at hearing. Mr. England interviewed, tested and evaluated Employee and reviewed his medical records for the purpose of rendering a vocational opinion. Mr. England opined that because of Employee's prior extensive work history as a pipefitter, he believed Employee had transferable skills down to a medium level of work, but not below that. He found that the restrictions from Dr. Kitchens limited Employee to a light level of lifting and he found that Dr. Poetz did not believe Employee was capable of returning to any type of work. Mr. England concluded that given Employee's presentation and complaints, his age, size, and his lack of any highly marketable skills, he would be unable to compete for, or sustain, any work in the open labor market considering the effects of his overall medical problems. Mr. England noted that he did review some additional records after he issued his original report, and none of those records would necessarily change his opinions in this matter, except that if you just consider Dr. Cantrell's restrictions, then perhaps Employee would be able to work in a sedentary-to-light level of employment. But even then, he agreed it would not be reasonable for an employer to allow Employee to rest or recline during the workday when he feels like he needs to do that to relieve his complaints. Mr. England also testified that Employee's pre-existing conditions of morbid obesity and diabetes mellitus with peripheral neuropathy would have impacted Employee's ability to work and would have constituted a hindrance or obstacle to his employment. However, he admitted on cross-examination that he found no records and heard no history from Employee that described any restrictions on his activities or any
difficulties he had performing his heavy work as a pipefitter up until the date of the April 6, 2006 injury.
33) Employee was evaluated by Mr. Bob Hammond (Exhibit 2), a vocational consultant, at Employer's request on November 21, 2008, after which Mr. Hammond issued a report dated November 25, 2008. Employer took Mr. Hammond's deposition on February 16, 2009 to make his opinions in this case admissible at hearing. Mr. Hammond interviewed and evaluated Employee, as well as reviewed his medical records for the purpose of rendering an opinion on Employee's ability to work in the open labor market. Relying heavily on his impressions of Employee's extensive prior involvement in running a furniture business with his wife for 12 years, Mr. Hammond essentially concluded that Employee had vocationally relevant transferable skills from that work, and he was capable of working in the light-to-sedentary levels of employment. He further noted that the medical restrictions placed on Employee by Drs. Cantrell and Kitchens also only limited Employee to the light-to-sedentary levels of employment. He noted that his interview of Employee ended when Employee became angry with his questions about whether or not Employee was capable of performing certain types of jobs. He concluded that Employee was able to compete for and maintain employment in the general labor market, if he so desired, based on his transferrable skills, his residual abilities, and the medical restrictions of Dr. Cantrell (light level) and Dr. Kitchens (sedentary level).
34) On cross-examination, Mr. Hammond admitted that he only noted Dr. Kitchens released Employee to light duty, without enumerating what specific restrictions Dr. Kitchens placed on Employee's ability to work. Mr. Hammond was not able to specifically name any other doctor who treated Employee after Dr. Kitchens released him, only the doctors who evaluated Employee, such as Dr. Poetz, Dr. Musich and Dr. Cantrell. He admitted that his opinions on employability were based on the medical restrictions and limitations, not Employee's description of his problems, complaints, or abilities. Mr. Hammond was questioned about whether or not he asked Employee if he would be willing to work selling pencils for Jimmy Swaggart, and Mr. Hammond responded that he may have asked that question, but he did not remember for sure if he did. Mr. Hammond also admitted that he did not specifically know what duties were included in the light duty work Employee returned to for a period of time after his injury in April 2006. He also had little, if any, specific information on the activities such as walking, driving, going to dinner and going to labor meetings which he included as relevant information in his report.
35) In terms of his continued complaints following the April 6, 2006 injury, Employee testified in his deposition on July 13, 2007 (Exhibit A) that he was unable to maintain the checking account and handle financial affairs because he had a hard time concentrating for any length of time. His cervical range of motion is limited by pain and he cannot look up at all. If he is laying flat on his back, standing too long, or sitting too long with his head leaning over, he feels increased pain, and he must move. He described a constant headache that radiates from the back of his head. He also testified that he believed his memory had been affected by the injury. He said it hurts to drive for any length of time and it hurts to go up and down steps. Employee
described radiating pain from his neck, down his arms, into his fingers on each hand. Employee testified that on a typical day he will get up from the recliner where he was sleeping (because he cannot sleep in bed very well), will sometimes go to the neighborhood pool to sit around or swim a little, and then sometimes will drive his wife to work. Perhaps once a month he will go to the North County Labor Club. He is able to read, but his neck will hurt if he holds his head down to read for too long. Employee was also taking numerous medications for high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol and pain.
36) In his second deposition dated March 20, 2009 (Exhibit B), Employee testified that when he worked the light duty job following his April 6, 2006 accident, a co-worker drove him to and from work. He testified that although he had some treatment and took some medication for his neck prior to April 6, 2006, he never missed time from work, and in his opinion, it was not debilitating. He only drove his wife to work, up the street about a mile, maybe less than once a week. He did not drive more than that because it hurt, he could not turn his neck, and he did not feel it would be safe. He would only go out to eat perhaps once a week to a restaurant about a mile from his house, and sometimes he would leave the meal early because of pain. He testified that he perhaps has attended three labor club meetings and four union meetings since his injury, but a relative would drive him back and forth to the meetings, and he did not always stay for the whole meeting because of increased pain complaints.
37) Employee's wife, Deborah Gervich, testified consistent with the rest of the medical records and with Employee's prior testimony about his continued problems and functional limitations after the injury at work on April 6, 2006. She noted that he could not stand up straight and his head moved forward more and more causing him to have hunched shoulders. He had complaints of headaches, was confused about their new home, and even forgot who she was for a period of time. She testified that the doctors seemed more concerned about his head injury immediately after the fall because of the bleeding and confusion. She also consistently described his problems with attending the union meetings, visiting family members and going out to eat after his injury. She confirmed that Employee was given an option for neck surgery, but then the doctor recommended against it because he was not a good candidate.
38) Employee's co-worker and friend, Bernard K. Grewe, Jr., also testified on Employee's behalf at the hearing. Mr. Grewe knew Employee for approximately 20 years and was working with him on April 6, 2006 when he was injured. He described Employee as a hard worker who never missed work prior to his injury. He was the one who drove Employee to and from work for the 3 to $31 / 2$ weeks of light duty after his injury on April 6, 2006. During this time he would have to help Employee step up into, and down out of, the trailer where he performed the light duty work. Based on what he observed of Employee after the injury, he did not believe Employee was capable of doing any sustained work after the accident.