Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

Julia Reno v. DaimlerChrysler

Decision date: September 18, 201321 pages

Summary

The LIRC affirmed the administrative law judge's decision denying workers' compensation benefits to Julia Reno for alleged occupational disease of the back and cervical spine from repetitive heavy lifting, finding she failed to prove causal relationship to her employment. A dissenting opinion argued the evidence supported permanent partial disability awards based on Dr. Volarich's opinion that heavy lifting at the St. Louis plant caused her lumbar and cervical spine conditions.

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 DENYING COMPENSATION

(Affirming Award and Decision of Administrative Law Judge)

Injury No.: 05-144364

Employee: Julia Reno

Employer: DaimlerChrysler

Insurer: Self-Insured

Additional Party: Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund

The above-entitled workers' compensation case is submitted to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) for review as provided by § 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 Law. Pursuant to § 286.090 RSMo, the Commission affirms the award and decision of the administrative law judge dated December 8, 2011, and awards no compensation in the above-captioned case.

The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Margaret D. Landolt, issued December 8, 2011, is attached and incorporated by this reference.

Given at Jefferson City, State of Missouri, this $18^{\text {th }}$ day of September 2013.

LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

John J. Larsen, Jr., Chairman

James G. Avery, Jr., Member

DISSENTING OPINION FILED

Curtis E. Chick, Jr., Member

Attest:

Secretary

I have reviewed and considered all of the competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. Based upon my review of the evidence as well as my consideration of the relevant provisions of the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law, I believe the decision of the administrative law judge should be reversed.

Relying upon the opinion of Dr. Irvine, the administrative law judge ruled that employee failed to meet her burden of proving her back and cervical spine conditions were causally related to her work for employer. I disagree.

I find credible the opinion of Dr. Volarich that the heavy lifting that employee performed after her transfer to the St. Louis plant was the prevailing factor in causing both her lumbar and cervical spine problems. I would award to employee permanent partial disability of 45 % of the body as a whole referable to the lumbar spine and 20 % permanent partial disability of the body as a whole referable to the cervical spine in accordance with the opinions of Dr. Volarich.

For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority of the Commission.

Curtis E. Chick, Jr., Member

AWARD

Employee: Julia Reno

Departments: N/A

Employer: DaimlerChrysler

Additional Party: Second Injury Fund

Insurer: Self-insured

Hearing Date: September 7, 2011

Injury No.: 05-144364

Before the<br>Division of Workers' Compensation<br>Department of Labor and Industrial<br>Relations of Missouri<br>Jefferson City, Missouri

Checked by: MDL

FINDINGS OF FACT AND RULINGS OF LAW

  1. Are any benefits awarded herein? No
  2. Was the injury or occupational disease compensable under Chapter 287? No
  3. Was there an accident or incident of occupational disease under the Law? No
  4. Date of accident or onset of occupational disease: Alleged October 31, 2005
  5. State location where accident occurred or occupational disease was contracted: alleged St. Louis, 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
  8. Did accident or occupational disease arise out of and in the course of the employment? No
  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: Employee alleged she sustained an occupational disease of her low back from repetitive heavy lifting.
  12. Did accident or occupational disease cause death? No
  13. Part(s) of body injured by accident or occupational disease: N/A
  14. Nature and extent of any permanent disability: 0
  15. Compensation paid to-date for temporary disability: 0
  16. Value necessary medical aid paid to date by employer/insurer? 0
  1. Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer/insurer? N/A
  2. Employee's average weekly wages: Unknown
  3. Weekly compensation rate: $\$ 696.97 / \ 365.08
  4. Method wages computation: By stipulation

COMPENSATION PAYABLE

  1. Amount of compensation payable:
  2. Second Injury Fund liability: No

TOTAL:

  1. Future requirements awarded: None

Said payments to begin and to be payable and be subject to modification and review as provided by law.

The compensation awarded to the claimant shall be subject to a lien in the amount of N/A of all payments hereunder in favor of the following attorney for necessary legal services rendered to the claimant:

FINDINGS OF FACT and RULINGS OF LAW:

Employee: Julia Reno

Departments: N/A

Employer: DaimlerChrysler

Additional Party: Second Injury Fund

Insurer: Self-insured

Injury No.: 05-144364

Before the

Division of Workers'

Compensation

Department of Labor and Industrial

Relations of Missouri

Jefferson City, Missouri

Checked by: MDL

PRELIMINARIES

A hearing was held on September 7, 2011 at the Division of Workers' Compensation in the city of St. Louis, Missouri. Mr. Anthony Pugliese represented Julia Reno ("Claimant"). DaimlerChrysler Corporation ("Employer") which is self-insured was represented by Mr. James Kennedy. The Second Injury Fund ("SIF") was represented by Assistant Attorney General Carol Barnard. This case was tried concurrently with Injury Nos. 05-041703 and 06-134005, which are the subjects of separate awards. Mr. Pugliese requested a fee of 25 % of Claimant's award.

The parties stipulated that on or about October 31, 2005, Claimant was an employee of Employer; venue is proper in the city of St. Louis, Missouri; Claimant's rates of compensation are $\ 696.97 for Temporary Total Disability ("TTD") benefits and $\ 365.08 for Permanent Partial Disability ("PPD") benefits.

The issues for resolution by hearing are: whether Claimant sustained an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of employment on or about October 31, 2005; whether Claimant provided the requisite notice to Employer of her occupational disease; medical causation; whether Claimant is entitled to TTD benefits from October 19, 2006 to May 27, 2008; nature and extent of PPD benefits; liability of the SIF; whether the claim is barred by the statute of limitations; and whether Claimant is permanently and totally disabled.

Although all of the evidence in this case was reviewed, only evidence necessary to support this award will be summarized.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

Claimant is a 51 year old woman who was hired by Employer in 1983. She worked at their plant in Huntsville Alabama, which manufactured electronic panels for their vehicles. There is no evidence the work Claimant did for Employer in Huntsville, Alabama involved heavy lifting or excessive use of her back. In February 2005, Claimant moved to St. Louis to work for Employer, and began working at their assembly plant in Fenton on February 21, 2005, and worked there until she left on October 19, 2006. Claimant retired from Employer in May 2008.

After Claimant transferred to the Fenton plant, she was classified as a Tech III. The first department she was assigned to was the Body Shop, where they assembled all of the metal pieces of the mini vans which were then welded together by a robot. Her title in the Body Shop was Floater, which meant she filled in as needed in the body shop department. She worked in the body shop from February to October, 2005. Her first job was putting rear quarter panels on a rack. There were 19 panels weighing 23 pounds on a rack, and she had to step up onto a rack that was one foot off the ground and pick up a panel, back out of the rack, and then set it down. She had to load about 25-50 panels an hour. There was a big metal box on a platform on the floor, and she had to tilt it towards her and pull large pieces of metal which weighed 2 to 5 pounds apiece out of a box. She picked up as many at a time as she could. This required her to bend at the waist. She worked eight to nine hours a day, with twelve minute breaks in the morning and afternoon, and 30 minutes for lunch.

Shortly after Claimant began working at that job, she began to have pain in her low back which radiated into her right buttocks and down her right leg. Claimant saw her primary care physician, Dr. Allen, on April 28, 2005, complaining of low back pain. Claimant told Dr. Allen she had been lifting a lot at work, and had a stiff back from the birth of her daughter. Dr. Allen prescribed physical therapy. She gave Claimant a work restriction of no lifting over ten pounds, and then released her to full duty after one week. Claimant called Employer and told them she would be off work on medical leave for one week. When she returned to work, Employer required a medical release from Dr. Allen. Claimant testified she told the plant medical department she had done a job on Friday and hurt her back and that was why she was off for one week. Claimant testified Employer did not offer her any medical treatment. She testified she reported the incident to her supervisor, and told him the job she was on hurt her back, and he said he would take care of it. According to Claimant, she never heard from him again.

The plant medical records indicate Claimant reported to the medical department on May 5, 2005. The records indicate she was absent since April 25, 2005, and was released by Dr. Allen. The diagnosis was lateral epicondylitis, back pain, and anxiety. The records state Claimant was there to reinstate and she gave a long history of back pain, ever since her daughter was born in 1992. Claimant indicated her pregnancy caused lower back pain, and that her last MRI had been done two years before.

After working in the body shop, Claimant transferred to the inspection department as a floater. Claimant worked in the inspection department from October 15 until she left in 2005. Claimant testified her back flared up when she was doing a job called "lock and latch".

Claimant has a long history of low back problems. In 2002 Claimant had an MRI of her lumbar spine. The clinical history she gave at that time was low back pain radiating to both lower extremities. The MRI was performed to evaluate for herniated disc. The MRI was essentially unremarkable.

On September 27, 2006, Claimant saw Dr. Petkovich for an orthopedic consultation. Claimant's chief complaint was of pain in her low back and right lower extremity. She denied any specific history of injury. She indicated it had been bothering her for the past several months. Claimant denied any prior problems with her lower back. Dr. Petkovich diagnosed muscular and ligamentous lumbosacral strain with prior vascular disease and possible lumbar

discogenic component. He recommended an MRI and physical therapy. An MRI was performed on October 5, 2006. The clinical history given was of back pain and bilateral lower extremity discomfort and bilateral lower extremity weakness. Claimant reported having had low back pain for the previous 14 years, with no specific injury. The MRI revealed degenerative disc disease at L4-5 with desiccation and signal loss with a large central protrusion, which prolapsed slightly below the level of the interspace. There was no significant interspace narrowing at that location.

When Claimant saw Dr. Backer on December 19, 2006, she have a history of low back complaints on and off for 14 years, more severe at times than others. Dr. Backer examined Claimant, and did not find signs of radiculopathy. He noted her MRI showed a bulging disk at L4-5 with a small central and inferior herniation. He discussed with Claimant the uncertainties of outcome with back surgery for just degenerative disk disease. He discussed the possibility of a lumbar diskogram with the knowledge that if she went on to have a back surgery based on the results of the diskogram that the success rate is somewhere between 60 to 70 % with a 30 to 40 % failure rate.

On January 5, 2007, Claimant s

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

Related Decisions

affirmed

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's award allowing workers' compensation benefits for Jason L. Collins' occupational disease claim involving cumulative trauma to his back and right lower extremity sustained while employed as a truck driver/laborer. The Commission rejected the employer's argument that an untimely answer resulted in admission of all facts including legal conclusions about whether the injury arose out of employment.

occupational disease9,505 words
affirmed

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the administrative law judge's award of death benefits to the widow of Russell Hayes, a volunteer firefighter killed in the line of duty. The majority awarded death benefits at the statutory minimum wage rate of $40.00 per week, though a dissenting opinion argued for a higher wage determination based on the statutory provisions for calculating average weekly earnings.

occupational disease5,849 words
affirmed

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the administrative law judge's award of workers' compensation benefits to Elizabeth A. Steele for injuries sustained when a patient slammed his leg down on her head, neck, and shoulders while she was working as a critical care unit nurse. The Commission found the award was supported by competent and substantial evidence and determined the employee is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits.

occupational disease10,794 words
affirmed

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the administrative law judge's award denying compensation to Carl Hanes for an alleged occupational disease from radiation exposure at the Department of Corrections. The Commission found the employee failed to provide proper notice and that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment, resulting in no benefits awarded.

occupational disease6,305 words

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's Temporary or Partial Award in a workers' compensation case for employee Cynthia Porter, finding the award supported by competent and substantial evidence. The Commission upheld the ALJ's determination that the claimant's diabetes was well-controlled, rejecting the employer/insurer's challenge to this medical finding.

occupational disease7,008 words