Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

Joanna Mayo v. Sprint Corporation

Decision date: June 28, 20139 pages

Summary

The Commission affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's award of workers' compensation to employee Joanna Mayo for injuries sustained from a fall caused by a sticky floor in the employer's break room on July 22, 2010. The Commission found that the employee's injuries arose out of and in the course of employment because they resulted from an abnormal and hazardous condition specific to the workplace, not a risk equally present in normal nonemployment life.

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

FINAL AWARD ALLOWING COMPENSATION (Affirming Award and Decision of Administrative Law Judge with Supplemental Opinion)
Injury No.: 10-058693
Employee:Joanna Mayo
Employer:Sprint Corporation
Insurer:American Casualty Company
This workers' compensation case is submitted to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) for review as provided by § 287.480 RSMo. Having read the briefs, reviewed the evidence, heard the parties’ arguments, and considered the whole record, we find that the award of the administrative law judge allowing compensation is supported by competent and substantial evidence and was made in accordance with the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law. Pursuant to § 286.090 RSMo, we affirm the award and decision of the administrative law judge with this supplemental opinion.
Discussion Injury arising out of and in the course of employmentThe parties dispute whether employee sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment when on July 22, 2010, her shoe stuck to the floor in employer’s break room, causing her to fall.As a preliminary matter, we note employer’s argument that employee’s foot didn’t actually stick to the floor, but instead it was just her shoe that made her fall. Employer cites testimony from Julie Rengel, who was there when employee fell, and who testified that employee said, “It could have been [my] shoes.” Transcript, page 812. Employer also cites testimony from Dora Helm, who assisted employee in the moments after the fall, and who testified, “[Employee] told me that her shoes skidded on the floor.” Transcript, page 775.Employee testified at the hearing that her shoe stuck to the floor, and the administrative law judge found employee’s testimony to be “highly credible.” Award, page 6. We discern no compelling reason to overturn the administrative law judge’s specific finding with regard to employee’s testimony, and adopt it as our own.Turning to the question whether employee’s injury arose out of and in the course of employment, we note that the courts have interpreted § 287.020.3(2)(b) RSMo to involve a “causal connection” test. Johme v. St. John’s Mercy Healthcare, 366 S.W.3d 504, 510-11 (Mo. 2012), quoting Miller v. Mo. Highway & Transp. Comm’n, 287 S.W.3d 671, 674 (Mo. 2009). In specifically contrasting a “work-related risk” versus a “risk to which the employee was equally exposed” outside of work, the Johme court seemed to indicate that our analysis under § 287.020.3(2)(b) should begin with an identification of the risk or hazard that resulted in the employee’s injuries, followed by a quantitative comparison whether this employee was equally exposed to that risk in normal nonemployment life. Id. at 512. Following the court’s reasoning, the result of this

- 2 -

quantitative comparison should reveal whether employee's injuries resulted from a risk unrelated to the employment.

Here, we find that the risk or hazard that resulted in employee's injuries was a sticky floor in employer's break room. Employee cannot reasonably be expected, and is not required to identify what caused the floor to be sticky.

We conclude that employee's injuries did 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, because employee has demonstrated that her accidental injuries were caused by an abnormal and hazardous condition specific to her workplace. We conclude that employee's injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment.

**Conclusion**

We affirm and adopt the award of the administrative law judge as supplemented herein.

The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Lisa Meiners, issued May 11, 2012, is attached and incorporated by this reference.

We approve and affirm 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 28th day of June 2013.

LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

John J. Larsen, Jr., Chairman

James G. Avery, Jr., Member

Curtis E. Chick, Jr., Member

Attest:

Secretary

FINAL AWARD

Employee: JOANNA MAYO

Injury No. 10-058693

Dependents: $\quad \mathrm{N} / \mathrm{A}$

Employer: SPRINT CORPORATION

Insurer: American Casualty Company

Additional Party: N/A

Hearing Date: April 6, 2012

Checked by: LM/cy

FINDINGS OF FACT AND RULINGS OF LAW

  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: July 22, 2010
  5. State location where accident occurred or occupational disease was contracted: Independence, 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: While working in the course and scope of employment, Employee tripped and fell, resulting in right shoulder injury.
  12. Did accident or occupational disease cause death? No
  1. Part(s) of the body injured by accident or occupational disease: Right upper extremity.
  2. Nature and extent of any permanent disability: 22.5 percent of right upper extremity.
  3. Compensation paid to date for temporary disability: $\-0-
  4. Value necessary medical aid paid to date by employer/insurer? $\-0-
  5. Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer/insurer? \22,977.38
  6. Employee's average weekly wages: \ 489.30 (using 30 hour rule).
  7. Weekly compensation rate: $\$ 241.40 / \ 326.20.
  8. Method wage computation: By stipulation.

ISSUES

The issues to be resolved by this hearing are as follows:

1) Whether the Employee sustained an injury arising out of the course of her employment; and

2) Whether Employee is in need of future medical care and treatment.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND RULINGS OF LAW

The Employee, Joanna Mayo, testified in person and offered the following exhibits, all of which were admitted into evidence without objection:

Claimant's Exhibit A - Medical records from Centerpoint Medical Center

Claimant's Exhibit B - Medical records of Village of Jackson Creek

Claimant's Exhibit C - Independent medical examination, James Stuckmeyer, M.D.

Claimant's Exhibit D - Independent medical examination of Allen Parmet, M.D.

The Employer called its witness, Mary Ann Dry, and offered the following exhibits, all of which were admitted into evidence without objection except those made at the time of said deposition:

Employer's Exhibit 1 - Deposition of Dora Helm

Employer's Exhibit 2 - Deposition of Julie Rangle

Employer's Exhibit 3 - Medical records, Rockhill Orthpedics

Based on the above exhibits and the testimony of the witnesses, this Court makes the following rulings:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND RULINGS OF LAW:

Employee: JOANNA MAYO

Injury No. 10-058693

Dependents: $\quad \mathrm{N} / \mathrm{A}$

Employer: SPRINT CORPORATION

Insurer: American Casualty Company

Additional Party: N/A

Hearing Date: April 6, 2012

Checked by: LM/cy

On July 22, 2010 at approximately 7:30 a.m., Employee, Joanna Mayo, reported to work at her employer's place of business. Ms. Mayo works part time at Sprint (approximately 20 hours per week) assisting individuals who are hard of hearing making telephone calls and has done so for twenty years. Ms. Mayo testified that she had parked in the company parking lot, entered the Sprint building and took an elevator to her work area on the $2^{\text {nd }}$ floor. She then went to her desk to set down her bag and purse. Ms. Mayo then went to her locker to get her coffee and water cups. From there, she went to the break room, furnished by Sprint for its employees' use, to place her snack in the refrigerator. As she entered the break room, she was carrying her snack and water and coffee cups in her hands.

It is to be noted that the employees' work area is secured from the public and only Sprint employees are allowed in the work area. One must enter a special code via keypad to gain entrance to the Sprint building, which is completely controlled by Sprint.

There was a rubber mat on the floor as one entered the break room. As Ms. Mayo stepped off the rubber mat onto the linoleum floor, her foot stuck, causing her to fall. Employee had on capri pants and tennis shoes with ribbed bottoms at the time of her accident. The break room had several mats placed in front of various appliances. As a result of the Employee's foot sticking, she lost her balance and fell, sustaining severe injuries to her right shoulder.

After Ms. Mayo's supervisor was called, she was transferred to the Centerpoint Medical Center in Independence, Missouri. She was there for several days, then moved to the Village of Jackson Creek for extensive rehabilitation and therapy. Employee stated that her primary injury was a broken right shoulder and a torn rotator cuff. She returned to work on February 17, 2012, but has continued problems with her right upper extremity, it now being weak, painful, and restricted in movement. Employee also testified that she did not desire surgery to treat her work injury until it became necessary; stating that once the pain became intolerable, she would seek additional medical care and treatment.

Extensive medical records were introduced by Employee from the above treating institutions, showing in detail the nature and extent of her injuries and the treatment rendered. Employee additionally

submitted the independent medical examination from James Stuckmeyer, M.D., who saw Ms. Mayo on April 11, 2011. Dr. Stuckmeyer, who had the complete records from Centerpoint Medical Center and Village of Jackson Creek found that, while at work, Employee, when walking into the Sprint break room, had her foot stuck on the floor causing her to fall. Claimant sustained a fractured right shoulder and a torn right rotator cuff.

Employee indicated to Dr. Stuckmeyer that she wanted to delay treatment of the right shoulder as long as possible, even though it had been recommended. The doctor additionally found that all the medical treatment that preceded Ms. Mayo's visit to him was necessary, just and reasonable to treat her condition from the fall at work. The doctor indicated that as a direct result of the injury Ms. Mayo had suffered a 25 % permanent partial disability to her right upper extremity.

Throughout Ms. Mayo's testimony, Ms. Mayo was consistent that she had entered the break room and while stepping off the rubber mat, her foot stuck, causing her to fall. She also stated that the accident occurred at approximately 7:30 a.m., which was the time she was due to start working. Ms. Mayo agreed that she had not officially clocked in before her injury.

She additionally testified as to her prior medical history, which included a fall while working for the government years before and also an additional fall which occurred in 2009 when she was attending church. Additionally, mention was made of allegations of nerve problems with her feet, which were adamantly denied by Employee.

The Employer offered the testimony of Mary Ann Dry, the Sprint office supervisor. Ms. Dry stated that she was notified of the Employee's injury and immediately went to the accident scene, arriving there in approximately one minute. There she found Ms. Mayo on the floor and in obvious pain. 911 was contacted and she directed the Employee to be transferred to Centerpoint Medical Center for treatment.

Ms. Dry additionally stated that Ms. Mayo had not clocked in at the time o

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

Related Decisions

affirmed

The LIRC affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's determination that Birnamwood Condominium Association was a statutory employer and that Meyers Trees & More, LLC was not properly insured under Missouri workers' compensation law. An employee of Meyers Trees was injured while performing tree-trimming work at the condominium complex after slipping off a roof.

fall8,447 words
affirmed

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the administrative law judge's award denying workers' compensation to employee Shelly Dale for injuries sustained in a fall. The Commission dismissed the employee's application for review as failing to meet procedural requirements under Commission rule 8 CSR 20-3.030(3)(A) for insufficient specificity in identifying the issues contested.

fall7,673 words

The LIRC affirmed the ALJ's award allowing past and future medical compensation for Cynthia G. Null's work-related injuries sustained from a fall on ice in the employer's parking lot on December 24, 2012. The Commission rejected the employer's argument that the work injury must be the prevailing factor in causing the need for future medical treatment, finding that § 287.140 does not impose such a strict standard for medical benefits.

fall27,478 words

The Commission affirmed the administrative law judge's award allowing workers' compensation benefits to employee Lois McDowell for injuries sustained from catching a two-wheeled cart on a doorway and falling in the hospital parking garage. A dissenting opinion argued the injury was not causally connected to employment because the risk of falling was equally present in normal nonemployment life.

fall6,129 words
affirmed

The Commission affirmed the administrative law judge's award granting workers' compensation benefits to Gale Hardwick for a fall injury sustained on October 9, 2014, while working at a Conagra Foods facility. The employee was determined to be totally and permanently disabled and is entitled to permanent total disability benefits of $486.17 per week beginning May 8, 2015.

fall6,798 words