Betty Shackleford v. SAB of the TSD of the City of St. Louis

persuasive force herein. The lack of a persuasive expert opinion with respect to the issue of medical causation is fatal to employee's claim. For this reason, we affirm the award of the administrative law judge denying benefits.

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

The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Karla Ogrodnik Boresi, issued December 17, 2014, is attached and incorporated herein to the extent not inconsistent with this supplemental decision.

Given at Jefferson City, State of Missouri, this $19^{\text {th }}$ day of June 2015.

LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

John J. Larsen, Jr., Chairman

James G. Avery, Jr., Member

Curtis E. Chick, Jr., Member

Attest:

Secretary

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? Yes
4. Date of accident or onset of occupational disease: September 15, 2010
5. State location where accident occurred or occupational disease was contracted: Saint Louis City
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? N/A
11. Describe work employee was doing and how accident occurred or occupational disease contracted: Teaching
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: N/A
15. Compensation paid to-date for temporary disability: None
16. Value necessary medical aid paid to date by employer/insurer? $\ 258.00

1. Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer/insurer? N/A
2. Employee's average weekly wages: Sufficient for maximum rates
3. Weekly compensation rate: $\$ 799.11 / \ 418.58
4. Method wages computation: Stipulation

1. Amount of compensation payable: None
2. Second Injury Fund liability: N/A

TOTAL:

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 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: Jennifer Finley

Employee: Betty Shackleford

Injury No.:10-087428

Dependents: N/A

Employer: SAB of the TSD of the City of St. Louis

Additional Party N/A

Insurer: Self C/O CCMSI

Hearing Date: October 20, 2014

Before the

Division of Workers' Compensation

Department of Labor and

Industrial Relations

Of Missouri

Jefferson City, Missouri

Checked by: KOB: dwj

The matter of Betty Shackelford ("Claimant") proceeded to hearing to determine whether Claimant is entitled to recover benefits under the Missouri Workers' Compensation Act (the "Act"). Attorney Jennifer Finley represented Claimant. Attorney Maurice Early represented the Special Administrative Board of the School District of the City of St. Louis ("Employer"), which is self-insured.

The parties agreed that on or about September 15, 2010, Claimant was an employee of Employer, earning an average weekly wage that qualifies Claimant for rates of compensation of $\ 799.11 for temporary total disability ("TTD") benefits, and $\ 418.58 for permanent partial disability ("PPD") benefits. Employer paid $\ 258.00 in medical benefits, but no TTD. Venue is proper in the City of St. Louis, Employer received proper notice, and Claimant filed her claim within the time required by the Act.

Employer challenges whether this is a compensable claim. The issues are: 1) Does the incident of September 15, 2010 constitute an Accident under the Act; 2) If so, is the Accident the medical cause of Claimant's injuries; 3) Is Employer liable for past medical expenses in the stipulated amount of $\ 1,645.00; 4) Is Employer obligated to pay TTD benefits from September 16, 2010 to June 2, 2011, and 5) What is the liability of Employer for PPD benefits?

The exhibits, admitted into evidence without objection, were: 1) Report of Injury; 2) Claim for Compensation; 3a-d) Dr. Jerome Williams medical records ${ }^{1}$; 5) Barnes Care records; 6) Rehabilitation Institute of St. Louis; 8) Barnes Jewish Hospital; 10) Center for Advanced Medicine / Dr. Stewart; 12) Dr. Heidi Prater; 14) ProRehab: 16) Star Center; 18) report of Dr. Volarich; 19) supplemental report of Dr. Volarich; 20) deposition of Dr Volarich; 21) work loss authorizations; 22) certified copies, Division of Workers' Compensation; 23) deposition exhibits of Dr. Randolph/prior records of Dr. Williams; 24) CCMSI letter ; and A) deposition of Dr. Randolph.

[^0]

[^0]: ${ }^{1}$ The version of Exhibit 3 originally submitted at hearing contained multiple inconsistencies on its face. At the request of the ALJ, and with consent of opposing counsel, Claimant resubmitted all available sets of Dr. Williams' records, including 3a) 34 pages certified as of 4/6/2012; 3b) uncertified records ( 15 pages) from Esse Health; 3c) 6 uncertified pages from the Williams Clinic; and 3d) a duplicate of the 34 pages in 3a, as provided by Employer's counsel's office.

Claimant is a 58 year old woman who earned her BA from Harris Stowe State College, and two Master's Degrees from Washington University and St. Louis University, respectively. Claimant's first job teaching math began in 1980 with St. Louis Job Corps. In 1983, Claimant went to work for Employer, where she continued to work as a teacher until her retirement in December 2012.

Claimant had two significant injuries prior to 2010. In 1998, she injured her neck in a motor vehicle accident. Claimant testified she was offered surgery, but chose conservative treatment including physical therapy that was effective in resolving her neck pain. In March 2006, Claimant was at work when she fell on crumbling steps. She put out her right hand to break her fall, and hurt her right arm, neck and hip. As a result of the 2006 fall, Claimant experienced burning, throbbing pain in her right arm. She treated with Dr. Roy Jerome Williams ${ }^{2}$, her personal physician, who diagnosed right cervical radiculopathy and ordered physical therapy. The pain, according to Claimant's testimony, went away, although she settled the workers' compensation claim flowing from the March 2006 injury for 5\% PPD of the whole body referable to the neck and 5 % PPD of the right hip.

There are no records prior to 2007 in evidence, although the physical therapy records confirm a history of neck pain dating back to the 1998 MVA, and the problems with the right shoulder and neck following the 2006 fall. Claimant's rating doctor, Dr. David Volarich, noted that a cervical MRI from May 18, 2006 ordered by Dr. Doll showed advanced degenerative disc disease at C4-5, C5-6, and C6-7 with spondylotic spurs and dorsal projecting bony spurs which abutted the chord. Dr. William's handwritten records mention ongoing or resolving symptoms of the neck, right upper extremity, flank and/or back pain in 11 of the 15 entries between 2007 and the date of injury. The prior problems in the neck and right shoulder seemed to wax and wane, but improved with treatment.

On Wednesday, September 15, 2010, around 10:00 in the morning, Claimant was standing at the whiteboard in the front of the room instructing the class. She stood with her arm raised, writing on the board, with her head slightly turned. Suddenly, she felt something strike her on the right side of her head, above her glasses. Startled, she turned her head quickly towards in the direction of the projectile, and her body followed. She did not fall, trip or stumble. Claimant felt immediate radiating neck pain. Her head also hurt.

Upon inspection, Claimant discovered she had been struck by a ping pong ball-sized wad of crumpled paper wrapped around sunflower seed hulls. She confronted the person whose name was written on the paper, and although he denied having thrown the paper, Claimant sent a request to have the student removed from the classroom. Claimant felt violated, upset, and ang