Tammy Stieferman v. Optima Graphics, LTD

(Affirming Award and Decision of Administrative Law Judge)

Injury No. 14-025821

Employee: Tammy Stieferman

Employer: Optima Graphics, LTD

Insurer: Federal Insurance Company

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, read the briefs, 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 allowing compensation to the employee.

We note that the proceedings in this matter were consolidated, by agreement of the parties and order of the Commission, with those in Injury No. 14-035591 for all purposes. Pursuant to 8 CSR § 20-3.050, we hereby designate Injury No. 14-025821 as the "master proceeding." Also pursuant to that regulation, we have issued a separate award in Injury No. 14-035591.

The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Suzette Carlisle, issued November 3, 2015, is attached and incorporated by this reference.

This award is only temporary or partial. It is subject to further order, and the proceedings are hereby continued and kept open until a final award can be made. All parties should be aware of the provisions of $\S 287.510$ RSMo.

Given at Jefferson City, State of Missouri, this 20th day of June, 2016.

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? 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: April 7, 2014
5. State location where accident occurred or occupational disease contracted: St. Louis County
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 happened or occupational disease contracted: Claimant tripped over a roll of fabric and injured her right shoulder.
12. Did accident or occupational disease cause death? No
13. Parts of body injured by accident or occupational disease: Right shoulder
14. Compensation paid to-date for temporary disability: $\ 0
15. Value necessary medical aid paid to date by employer/insurer? \$360.65
16. Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer/insurer? N/A

Employee: Tammy Stieferman

1. Employee's average weekly wages: $\ 656.49
2. Weekly compensation rate: $\$ 437.68 / \ 437.68
3. Method wages computation: Stipulated

1. Amount of compensation payable:

TOTAL: TO BE DETERMINED

Each of said payments to begin immediately and be subject to modification and review as provided by law. This award is only temporary or partial, is subject to further order, and the proceedings are hereby continued and the case kept open until a final award can be made.

IF THIS AWARD IS NOT COMPLIED WITH, THE AMOUNT AWARDED HEREIN MAY BE DOUBLED IN THE FINAL AWARD, IF SUCH FINAL AWARD IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS TEMPORARY AWARD.

The compensation awarded to the claimant shall be subject to a lien in the amount of 25 % of all payments hereunder in favor of the following attorney for necessary legal services rendered to the claimant: Michael Korte

On August 26, 2015, the parties appeared for a hearing for a temporary award at the Missouri Division of Workers’ Compensation ("Division") Office in St. Louis, at the request of Tammy Stieferman ("Claimant") for medical treatment, and to determine whether Optima Graphics LTD, ("Employer") and Federal Insurance Company, ("Insurer") are liable for additional medical care. Attorney Michael Korte represented Claimant. Attorney Ryan Weltz represented the Employer and Insurer. The record closed after presentation of the evidence. Court reporter Maria Krawat transcribed the proceeding. The Second Injury Fund is not a party to this case.

Injury Number 14-05591 is a second claim filed by Claimant. Some of the evidence applies to both claims and will be discussed in both awards.

The parties stipulated that on April 7, 2014:

1. Claimant was an employee of Employer in St. Louis County;
2. Claimant sustained an accident that arose out of and in the course of employment;
3. Employer and Claimant operated under the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Law; ${ }^{1}$
4. The Employer's liability was fully insured;
5. The Employer had proper notice of the injury;

[^0]

[^0]: ${ }^{1}$ All references in this award to the Employer also refer to the Insurer unless otherwise stated. Statutory references in this award are to the Revised Statutes of Missouri 2005 unless otherwise stated.

1. A claim for compensation was timely filed;
2. Claimant's average weekly wage was $\ 656.49 with a rate of $\ 437.68 for temporary total disability ("TTD") benefits;
3. Employer paid no TTD benefits;
4. Employer paid medical benefits totaling $\ 360.65; and
5. Employer agrees to pay TTD benefits if ordered by the Court and the authorized treating physician takes Claimant off work or Claimant cannot return to accommodated employment.

The parties identified two issues for disposition:

1. Was the accident the prevailing factor in causing Claimant's injury?
2. Is medical treatment needed to cure and relieve the effects of a work-related injury?

Claimant's Exhibits 1 through 6 and Employer's Exhibits A through D were offered and received into evidence with no objections. Any objections made during the hearing or contained in the depositions, but not ruled on during the hearing or in this award are now overruled. To the extent there are marks or highlights contained in the exhibits, they were made prior to becoming a part of this record and were not placed there by the undersigned administrative law judge.

All evidence was reviewed but only evidence that supports this award is discussed below.

1. Employer hired Claimant to work as a seamstress making trade show banners. At the time of the hearing, Claimant still worked for Employer. Claimant operates several machines, some standing, and others sitting. She works with large, heavy pieces of fabric. Banners are sewn together and placed on a frame. Frames can span more than two stories tall. The work is labor intensive and requires strength.

1. On April 7, 2014, Claimant's leg became tangled with a roll of fabric and she fell with her right arm extended over her head and she heard and felt a "tremendous pop." Claimant could not push herself up from the floor. She is right-hand dominant.

1. Claimant's supervisor drove her to get medical care. On the way, Claimant's supervisor assured her the rolls of fabric would be relocated. The fabric was not relocated. Unfortunately, the fabric was not relocated.
2. St. Luke's Urgent Care took x-rays, prescribed medication, ordered three physical therapy visits, and imposed the following restrictions: no lifting more than 5 pounds, and no overhead lifting. X-rays were difficult to take because Claimant could not move her arm as requested.
3. Prior to this fall, Claimant had no problems or treatment for her right shoulder.

1. On April 21, 2014, Claimant's leg became caught on the same roll of fabric again and she fell on the right side of her back and injured her right lower back and her right shoulder. She felt a "shockwave" pass through her body that generated pain.
2. Claimant treated at St. Luke's Urgent Care where an MRI was ordered and she was referred to Dr. Hobbs. Dr. Hobbs informed Claimant her right shoulder had atrophied from a right shoulder injury more than a year ago; therefore, he released her from the work injury at maximum medical improvement ("MMI").
3. Between the two work accidents, Claimant continued to have right shoulder pain.
4. Claimant did not have low-back pain until after the right shoulder pain decreased after the second injury. She has not had any low-back treatment.
5. Claimant has ongoing right shoulder pain and cracking. At least once a week, pain makes it difficult for Claimant to lift her arm or use it. When sleeping, Claimant has pain with certain movements. She sleeps with her arm on a pillow to protect it. Changes in weather fatigue her.
6. Claimant continues to work full duty to tolerance. Her supervisor allows her to avoid climbing ladders and overhead work.

1. Claimant treated at an urgent care where x-rays were taken and medication and physical therapy were prescribed. (medical records are not in evidence) On April 17, 2014, Claimant reported 75 % improvement after she attended three physical therapy sessions prescribed by Linda Winterberger, D.O.
2. On May 5, 2014, Mercy Corporate Health-Fenton returned Claimant to restricted duty with "no lifting/carrying right arm. Pushing and pulling should be limited to 10 pounds or less right arm. Above shoulder level work may not be performed with the affected side."

1. Micah C. Hobbs, M.D., is a board certified orthopedic surgeon, who primarily performs knee and shoulder surgery. Dr. Hobbs reviewed medical records, examined Claimant on May 9, 2014, wrote a report and testified at the Employer's request for the first time in Missouri as an expert witness in a workers' compensation case.
2. Examination showed rotator cuff weakness. After examination of Claimant and review of Claimant's MRI images and records, Dr. Hobbs diagnosed a retracted full thickness tear of the supra and infraspinatus tendon with retraction of the supraspinatus to the glenohumeral joint, atrophy of the supra and infraspinatus tendons ${ }^{2}$, and degeneration of the subscapularis with mild glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Dr. Hobbs testified that retraction occurs over months or years as a tendon tears. Finding no acute injury on the MRI, Dr. Hobbs concluded the tear predated the April 7 and April 21 work injuries.
3. Dr. Hobbs further concluded the two April 2014 falls exacerbated Claimant's underlying condition, but was not the prevailing factor that caused the right shoulder condition. Dr. Hobbs opined the falls may have caused further damage to the already damaged tendon, causing it to become symptomatic. He noted many patients have torn rotator cuffs and are asymptomatic.
4. Dr. Hobbs explained the x-rays reveal changes that developed over time, including a positive right shoulder impingement, sclerosis, fragmentation of the greater tuberosity, moderate AC joint arthritis, and mild superior migration of the humeral head in relation to the glenoid.
5. Dr. Hobbs testified it is hard to identify acute injury changes, but the following findings on Claimant's x-rays are consistent with chronic rotator tea