Angela Neese v. Chrysler LLC, Inc.

split her duties with another transferee. Employee performed no work for employer during the weeks ending April 10 and 17, 2005. Employee then worked 36.1 hours during the week ending April 24, 2005. After April 22, 2005, employee performed no actual work duties for employer in the St. Louis plant. Instead, she attended a stress class, then took a leave of absence. We find that employee performed less than 3 weeks of actual work in employer's St. Louis plant.

Employee claims that she suffered an occupational disease in Missouri affecting her right shoulder as a result of this approximate 3 weeks of performing her work duties for employer. Employee provides expert medical testimony from Drs. Shawn Berkin and Robert Poetz. We have carefully reviewed the reports and deposition testimony from both doctors. After careful consideration, we find that both of these doctors were provided such limited information regarding employee's job duties in Missouri, the duration of her employment in Missouri, and the timing and onset of her complaints that their opinions lack any persuasive force with respect to the disputed issues in this matter.

For example, when asked whether he knew how long employee worked in Missouri, Dr. Berkin revealed his erroneous assumption that it was "probably" a couple of months, and that he "guess[ed]" employee developed symptoms at that time. Transcript, pages 298, 304. Dr. Poetz, meanwhile, seemed even less sure of the relevant facts involved in employee's claim: he admitted he didn't know the duration of employee's work in Missouri, and did not even know the significance of her claimed date of injury. Both doctors rendered purely conclusory opinions in their reports, and failed to persuasively explain any causative interaction between employee's job duties in Missouri and the purported occupational disease sustained in Missouri. Both doctors also failed to persuasively distinguish the purported occupational disease sustained in Missouri from employee's preexisting conditions affecting the right shoulder.

It may have been (indeed it appears to be the case) that employee's years of work for employer in Alabama contributed to or caused some of the injuries she claims herein, but we find that employee has failed to provide persuasive medical evidence that she contracted any identifiable occupational disease in this state.

Employer hired employee in Alabama; it follows (and we so find) that her contract for employment was not made in Missouri. Because employee only performed her actual job duties for employer for about 3 weeks in Missouri before participating in the stress class and taking a leave of absence, we find that her employment was not principally localized in Missouri within 13 calendar weeks of her suffering any identifiable injury or occupational disease.

Application of Chapter 287

Section 287.110.2 RSMo provides, as follows:

This chapter shall apply to all injuries received and occupational diseases contracted in this state, regardless of where the contract of employment was made, and also to all injuries received and occupational diseases contracted outside of this state under contract of employment made in this

State, unless the contract of employment in any case shall otherwise provide, and also to all injuries received and occupational diseases contracted outside of this state where the employee's employment was principally localized in this state within thirteen calendar weeks of the injury or diagnosis of the occupational disease.

We have found that employee did not contract any identifiable occupational disease in Missouri, that her contract for employment was not made in Missouri, and that her work was not principally localized in Missouri within 13 calendar weeks of the injury or diagnosis of occupational disease. It follows that employee has failed to satisfy the requirements of § 287.110. Accordingly, we conclude that Chapter 287 does not apply to employee's injuries.

We additionally wish to make clear that, if it were shown that Chapter 287 did apply to this claim, we would deny the claim on the issue of medical causation, owing to employee's failure to provide persuasive expert medical opinion evidence.

Employee's claim is denied because Chapter 287 does not apply to her injury or occupational disease.

The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Joseph E. Denigan, issued May 13, 2014, is attached solely for reference and is not incorporated by this decision.

Given at Jefferson City, State of Missouri, this $11^{\text {th }}$ day of March 2015.

LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

John J. Larsen, Jr., Chairman

James G. Avery, Jr., Member

Curtis E. Chick, Jr., Member

Attest:

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: May 27, 2005 (alleged)
5. State location where accident occurred or occupational disease contracted: St. Louis County (alleged)
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? 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 happened or occupational disease contracted: Employee alleged injury by repetitive trauma from Employer's assembly line.
12. Did accident or occupational disease cause death? N/A Date of death? N/A
13. Part(s) of body injured by accident or occupational disease: N/A
14. Nature and extent of any permanent disability: N/A
15. Compensation paid to-date for temporary disability: N/A
16. Value necessary medical aid paid to date by employer/insurer? N/A

1. Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer/insurer? N/A
2. Employee's average weekly wages: N/A
3. Weekly compensation rate: $\$ 675.90 / \ 354.05
4. Method wages computation: Stipulation

1. Amount of compensation payable:

None

1. Second Injury Fund liability: No

TOTAL:

-0-

1. Future requirements awarded: N/A

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

The compensation awarded to 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 Claimant: N/A

This case involves four separate Claims for Compensation: 05-068917(May 27, 2005), 05-068918 (June 6, 2005), 06-135663 (February 28, 2006) and 07-134224 (February 8, 2007). The testimony and exhibits in this record constitute the evidence in each Claim. Each Claim follows Claimant's transfer to St. Louis after many years in an Alabama plant. Each Claim is disputed by Employer. Separate Awards issue on each Claim. These cases may be referred to herein as the first, second, third and fourth cases, chronologically.

Employer admits Claimant was employed on each of the reported dates of injury and that any liability was fully insured. Claimant admits she was not at work on any of the alleged injury dates. The Second Injury Fund ("SIF") is a party to this claim. Claimant seeks PTD benefits against the SIF in the fourth Claim. Both parties are represented by counsel. Objections at expert depositions are ruled upon consistent with the findings herein.

Third And Fourth Cases

1. notice;

All four Cases

1. occupational disease (exposure and medical causation);
2. nature and extent of permanent disability;
3. liability of the SIF;

Fourth Case Only

1. Rate of Compensation

Claimant is a 54 year old native of Alabama. She has a high school diploma. Claimant began working at Chrysler's electronics plant in Huntsville, Alabama in 1984. She worked continuously there until she transferred to the Missouri plant in early 2005. Transfer became an option when the Huntsville plant was purchased by Siemens. After some transition, employees were told they had the choice of remaining in Huntsville and becoming a Siemens employee or transferring to some other Chrysler plant. Claimant opted to transfer to Chrysler's van plant Missouri, in order to retain her seniority. Her intention was to continue to w