No doctor was deposed. Obviously, there are differences of opinion regarding the precise nature of employee's work-related injury. We find credible employee's testimony that leading up to May 13, 2013, he was fully able to perform the duties of strenuous manual labor without significant symptoms or impairment referable to his right wrist, that he was essentially asymptomatic with respect to his right wrist and not in need of medical care.
The employee clearly sustained an accident on May 13, 2013, resulting in the immediate onset of severe, disabling, and unprecedented symptoms for which he required and received authorized care.
The employee's authorized treating physician Dr. Bagby, an orthopedist, diagnosed a scaphoid fracture. This diagnosis was supported by multiple radiological studies including x-rays on June 28, 2013, July 12, 2013, and July 29, 2013. The latter studies (contrary to assertions in employer/insurer's brief) were interpreted by Dr. Bagby as demonstrating a "healing" fracture, a diagnosis clearly consistent with a recent, acute injury. (Transcript, 296, 298, 307).
We give careful consideration to Dr. Toby's thoughtful analysis of this case. Although there may be some confusion as to whether Dr. Toby's opinions were based, in part, on a mistaken understanding regarding the length of time that passed from the date of accident to performance of the CT scan on August 14, 2012, we are convinced that Dr. Toby's opinions were well-informed.
Injury No.: 13-046307
Employee: Thomas Penning
- 2 -
We note Dr. Toby agrees it's possible that employee's work-related injury of May 13, 2013, made a previously asymptomatic scaphoid nonunion unstable. (Transcript, 278-279, 283). Thus, although Dr. Toby and Dr. Grimm disagree with regard to the precise nature of injury sustained, both opinions corroborate employee's reported sudden onset of severe, disabling and persistent symptoms of pain and numbness following the May 13, 2013, injury.
Based upon the employee's credible testimony and after careful review of the medical evidence, we find that employee's May 13, 2013, accident was the prevailing factor causing injury due to a change in the pathology of employee's scaphoid producing an immediate, unprecedented condition of pain and related disability that necessitated all treatment provided to date as described in the record before us.
Employer's medical expert recommended a carpal tunnel release be performed in conjunction with the fusion procedure involving employee's right wrist because postoperative swelling would likely aggravate employee's carpal tunnel syndrome. Because we find the fusion procedure was necessitated by painful symptoms caused by employee's accidental work injury, the need for carpal tunnel release is identified as compensable pursuant to the holding in Tillotson v. St. Joseph Medical Center, 347 S.W.3d 511 (Mo. App. 2011).
In any event, Dr. Grimm stated that swelling caused by the May 13, 2013, trauma was the prevailing factor causing employee's carpal tunnel syndrome. We note that post-traumatic swelling of the right wrist was observed by Dr. Bagby three months post-injury. We find employee's May 13, 2013, injury was the prevailing factor causing carpal tunnel syndrome.
Sufficiency of Pleadings
Employer/insurer also urge that no claim for carpal tunnel syndrome can be sustained herein because said condition was not specifically pled. This argument is without merit. Claims for compensation need not contain the formal elements of a civil petition. A sense of fairness requires only that the employer be advised of the nature of the claim. We find the pleadings herein are sufficient because the employer's medical expert was fully aware of employee's overall condition, medical evidence regarding causation was admitted without objection, and employer is not shown to have been surprised, misled, or unprepared to meet any issue presented. See Groce v. Pyle, 315 SW2d 482, 492-493 (Mo. App. 1958).
Objection to ALJ's Ruling on Submission of Proposed Award
Employer's application for review also alleges the ALJ erred in overruling its objection to the employee's submission of a proposed award.
We note that 8 CSR 50-2.010 (14) provides that "Hearings before the division shall be simple, informal proceedings." 8 CSR 50-2.010 (14) (C) provides, in pertinent part, "On the request of any party and on order of the administrative law judge, a brief may be