Rodrigo Pineda v. EFCO Corporation

(Affirming Award and Decision of Administrative Law Judge with Supplemental Opinion)

**Injury No.:** 06-036310

**Employee:** Rodrigo Pineda

**Employer:** EFCO Corporation

**Insurer:** Zurich American Insurance Company

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

This 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 parties' briefs, and considered the whole record, we find that the award of the administrative law judge allowing compensation is supported by competent and substantial evidence and was made in accordance with the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law. Pursuant to § 286.090 RSMo, we affirm the award and decision of the administrative law judge with this supplemental opinion.

We agree with the administrative law judge that employer/insurer is responsible for permanent total disability benefits as stated in the Final Award because employee's injuries to his left shoulder, as identified on January 31, 2008, were natural and probable consequences of the original accident on April 28, 2006, and "that employee did not sustain a new accident or occupational disease on January 31, 2008." *Final Award, p.14*. These findings are supported by Missouri case law and by competent and substantial evidence on the record.

"Where an employee sustains an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, every natural consequence that flows from the injury, including a distinct disability in another area of the body, is compensable as a direct and natural result of the primary or original injury." *Cahall v. Riddle Trucking, Inc.*, 956 S.W.2d 315, 322 (Mo. App. 1997) (overruled on other grounds by *Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection*, 121 S.W.3d 220, 226 (Mo. banc 2003)), citing *Lahue v. Missouri State Treasurer*, 820 S.W.2d 561, 563 (Mo. App. 1991).

Because of the April 28, 2006 injury, employee ceased to use his right arm and used his left arm to compensate, which compensation resulted in injuries to employee's left shoulder. Dr. Volarich credibly opined that employee's left shoulder injuries were a result of employee overcompensating for his right shoulder injuries of April 28, 2006. Furthermore, neither Dr. Volarich nor Dr. Lennard assigned any medical restrictions to employee regarding the January 31, 2008 work injury.

Injury No. 06-036310

Employee: Rodrigo Pineda

- 2 -

Based on the competent and substantial record, and in compliance with case law, we find that employee's injuries to his left shoulder were natural consequences that flowed from the original injury, even though they were in a different area of employee's body. Therefore, we find that employee's injuries to his left shoulder, as identified on January 31, 2008, were compensable as a natural and probable consequences of the original accident on April 28, 2006.

Employer does not persuade us that the administrative law judge's findings were against the competent and substantial evidence on the record. Employer argues that the left shoulder was not injured on April 28, 2006, or even until after employee started working in a new position in May 2007, and therefore, the injuries to the left shoulder had to result from another accident. Employer failed to point out in the record when and how that separate event occurred. Left shoulder injuries were reported on January 31, 2008, but the record does not describe a separate accident that specifically caused such injuries. We find the testimony of Dr. Volarich more credible that the left shoulder injuries were due to employee's extended use of his left arm over a period of time in order to compensate for his injuries from April 28, 2006.

As employee's injuries to his left shoulder, as identified on January 31, 2008, were compensable as natural and probable consequences of the original accident on April 28, 2006, employer/insurer is responsible for permanent total disability benefits as stated in the Final Award.

Whether employee is entitled to fees, costs, and expenses, pursuant to § 287.560, RSMo, in connection with responding to employer's appeal to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission?

Employee argues that the issue raised in employer's appeal is without reasonable ground based on the record. Therefore, employee moves for the Commission to assess upon employer fees, costs, and expenses for employee's response to this appeal, pursuant to § 287.560, RSMo.

Section 287.560, RSMo, provides, in pertinent part, that "if the division or the commission determines that any proceedings have been brought, prosecuted or defended without reasonable ground, it may assess the whole cost of the proceedings upon the party who so brought, prosecuted or defended them."

We "should only exercise [our] discretion to order the cost of proceedings under section 287.560 where the issue is clear and the offense egregious." Landman v. Ice Cream Specialties, Inc., 107 S.W.3d 240 (Mo. banc 2003) (overruled on other grounds by Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220, 224 (Mo. banc 2003)).

Employee argues that there was no evidence that employee was permanently and totally disabled based on a combination of the April 28, 2006 injury and the January 31, 2008 injury. In support of this argument, employee points out that all of the restrictions Dr. Lennard placed on employee were related to the April 28, 2006 injury and that it was

Injury No. 06-036310

Employee: Rodrigo Pineda

- 3 -

Dr. Lennard's opinion that the multi-level spondylosis and osteophytes pre-existed employee's work injury of January 31, 2008. Brief of Respondent, p.16.

Employee further points out that Mr. England, retained by employer, stated in his deposition that he could not think of any positions employee could do given Dr. Lennard's work restrictions (which were all related to the April 28, 2006 injury) and employee's academic limitations and language barrier. Therefore, employee argues that employer's assertion on appeal was unreasonable that employee was permanently and totally disabled based on a combination of the two injuries.

We do not feel that employer's conduct in this matter reaches the level found in other cases that warranted costs pursuant to § 287.560, RSMo. For example, in Landman v. Ice Cream Specialties, Inc., 107 S.W.3d 240, 250 (Mo. 2003), the employer promised to pay for treatment if its physician determined that the injuries were work-related. Once the physician determined that the injuries were work-related, the employer in Landman still refused to pay for treatment. Landman, 107 S.W.3d 240, at 250. Similarly, in Monroe v. Wal-Mart Assocs., 163 S.W.3d 501, 506 (Mo. App. 2005), the employer continued to deny responsibility for the employee's injuries even after its own physician determined that the employee's injuries resulted from the workplace. Monroe, 163 S.W.3d at 506.

Here, employer acknowledges that employee's injuries were work-related. Employer, however, challenges the administrative law judge's finding that employee was permanently and totally disabled based solely on the April 28, 2006 injury. Employer argues that the left shoulder was not injured on April 28, 2006, but that employee continued to perform work with his left arm and shoulder long after the April 28, 2006 injury. Employee did not experience pain in his left shoulder until over a year later, after starting a new position with employer. Therefore, employer argues, employee's left shoulder injuries should be treated as separate from his injuries sustained on April 28, 2006.

The idea that there were two separate injuries came initially, not from employer, but from employee. It was employee and his attorney who originally filed a separate claim for workers' compensation on February 20, 2008 citing the January 31, 2008 injury. Transcript, pp.224-26. In that claim, employee described the injury as follows: "While acting within the course and scope of employment, employee suffered pain and popping in left shoulder which extends to his back and neck." Transcript, p.225. Employee filed the February 20, 2008 claim against the Second Injury Fund. Transcript, p.226. It was employee's attorney's strategic choice to file a second claim, just in case it was ultimately proven to be a separate injury from the April 28, 2006 injury. We find it difficult to grant employee's motion against employer when employee filed claims for two separate injuries.

- 4 -

Furthermore, although the evidence strongly favors the ultimate finding that employee's left shoulder injuries were not the result of a separate injury or accident, the record fails to disclose evidence sufficient to support a finding that employer acted with the type of "egregious" conduct exemplified in cases such as *Monroe v. Wal-Mart Assocs.*, 163 S.W.3d 501, 506 (Mo. App. 2005) and *Landman v. Ice Cream Specialties, Inc.*, 107 S.W.3d 240, 250 (Mo. banc 2003). When we compare the facts involved in *Monroe* and *Landman* to those at issue here, we are not persuaded that employer engaged in the type of conduct that § 287.560 is designed to prevent.

We deny employee's motion for fees, costs, and expenses, pursuant to § 287.560, RSMo.

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

The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Karen Fisher is attached and incorporated herein to the extent not inconsistent with this supplemental decision.

We approve and affirm the administrative law judge's allowance of attorney's fee herein as being fair and reasonable.

Any past due compensation shall bear interest as provided by law.

Given at Jefferson City, State of Missouri, this 9/22 day of June 2018.

LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

John J. Larsen, Jr., Chairman

Reid K. Forrester, Member

Curtis E. Chick, Jr., Member

Attest:

Secretary

Employee: Rodrigo Pineda

Dependents: N/A

Employer: EFCO Corporation

Additional Party: Second Injury Fund

Insurer: Zurich American Insurance Company

Hearing Date: May 3, 2017

Injury Nos. '06-036310 & 08-015488

Before the

DIVISION OF WORKERS'

COMPENSATION

Department of Labor and Industrial

Relations of Missouri

Jefferson City, Missouri

Checked by:

1. Are any benefits awarded herein? YES

1. Was the injury compensable under Chapter 287? YES

1. Was there an accident under the Law? YES on April 28, 2006, and NO accident on January 31, 2008

1. Date of injury: April 28, 2006

1. Location where accidents occurred: Lawrence County, Missouri

1. Was above employee in employ of above employer at time of alleged accidents? YES

1. Did employer receive proper notice? YES

1. Did accidents arise out of and in the course of the employment? YES

1. Were claims for compensation filed within time required by Law? YES

1. Was employer insured by above insurer? YES

1. Describe work employee was doing and how accidents occurred: On April 28, 2006, Employee was injured

when a window fell on him.

1. Did accident cause death? NO

1. Parts of body injured by accident: Right shoulder and left shoulder.

1. Nature and extent of any permanent disability: PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY

1. Compensation paid to-date for temporary disability: None

1. Value of necessary medical aid paid to date by employer/insurer? $46,410.64

1. Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer/insurer? 2,164.00

1. Employee's average weekly wage: 529.82

Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Employee: Rodrigo Pineda

Injury Nos. 06-036310 & 08-015488

1. Employee's weekly compensation rate: 353.21 for Permanent Total Disability and 353.21 for Permanent Partial Disability.

1. Method wages computation: BY AGREEMENT

1. Amount of compensation payable:

- Past Medical: 2,164.00

- Temporary Total Disability: 2,472.47

- Permanent Total Disability as described below:

Beginning February 3, 2009, and continuing for the remainder of claimant's lifetime, the employer/insurer shall pay to claimant the weekly sum of $353.21, for permanent total disability benefits.

1. Second Injury Fund liability: None

1. Future requirements awarded: Yes, future medical benefits are awarded.

The payments are due and shall begin immediately. Any interest shall be paid as provided by law. This Award is subject to modification and review as provided by law.

This Award shall be subject to a lien in the amount of 25 percent of all payments hereunder in favor of the following law firm for necessary legal services rendered to the Claimant:

The Newman Law Firm, LLC

Employee: Rodrigo Pineda

Injury Nos. $06-036310 \& 08-015488$

Employee: Rodrigo Pineda

Injury Nos. $06-036310 \& 08-015488$

Dependents: N/A

Employer: EFCO Corporation

Additional Party: Second Injury Fund

Insurer: Zurich American Insurance Company

Hearing Date: May 3, 2017

The undersigned Administrative Law Judge conducted a Final Hearing on May 3, 2017. Rodrigo Pineda (Claimant) appeared personally and through his attorney, Jennifer Newman. EFCO Corporation (Employer) and Zurich American Insurance Company (Insurer) appeared by their attorney Greg Pearman. The Treasurer of Missouri, as custodian of the Second Injury Fund, appeared by Assistant Attorney General Kristie Pierce. Ms. Lisa Lewis served as the interpreter for the hearing. The parties were afforded the opportunity to submit proposed awards. The parties agreed to the following stipulations of facts and issues:

The parties entered into a Stipulation of Facts as follows:

1. On or about April 28, 2006, and January 31, 2008, EFCO Corporation was an employer operating under and subject to the Missouri Workers Compensation Law, and during this time was fully insured by Zurich American Company c/o Gallagher Bassett.
2. On April 28, 2006, and January 31, 2008, Rodrigo Pineda was an employee of Employer and was working under and subject to the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law.
3. The above referenced employment occurred in Barry County, Missouri. The parties agreed to venue lying in Jasper County, Missouri. Venue is proper.
4. Proper notice of injury was provided as required by Section 287.420 RSMo.

Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Employee: Rodrigo Pineda

Injury Nos. 06-036310 & 08-015488

1. The parties stipulate and agree that the employee's average weekly wage on April 28, 2006, and January 31, 2008, was $529.82 which was sufficient to produce a TTD/PPD rate of $353.21.

1. Employer and Insurer owe past temporary total disability benefits in the amount of $2,472.47 for the time period of March 20, 2007, through May 7, 2007.

1. Employer and insurer have paid medical benefits in the total amount of $46,410.64 for the injury dates of April 28, 2006, and January 31, 2008.

1. Counsel for employee seeks an attorney fee of 25% for injury numbers 06-036310 and 08-015488.

1. Claimant's prior attorney Jim Randall, Sr., is entitled to payment of his lien in the amount of $6,910.03.

The parties further stipulated the issues to be resolved for the injury on April 28, 2006, and the injury on January 31, 2008, by this hearing are as follows:

1. Whether the claimant sustained a separate occupational disease on January 31, 2008, which is separate and distinct from the accident on April 28, 2006?

1. Whether the accident/occupational disease caused the injuries and disabilities for which benefits are now being claimed?

1. Whether the employer is obligated to pay for past medical bills in the amount of $2,164.00 for treatment the claimant received at Cox Health Center Cassville, as referenced in Exhibit 3?

1. Whether the claimant sustained injuries that will require future medical care in order to cure and relieve the claimant of the effects of the injuries?

1. What is the nature and extent of any permanent disability?

1. Is the claimant entitled to disfigurement?

1. The liability of the Second Injury Fund for permanent total disability or enhanced permanent partial disability.

EXHIBITS

The following exhibits were offered and admitted into evidence:

Claimant's Exhibit 1 Medical Records-various providers

Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Employee: Rodrigo Pineda

Injury Nos. 06-036310 & 08-015488

Claimant's Exhibit 2

Claimant's Exhibit 3

Claimant's Exhibit 4

Claimant's Exhibit 5

Claimant's Exhibit 6

Claimant's Exhibit 7

Claimant's Exhibit 8

Employer's Exhibit A

Employer's Exhibit B

Employer's Exhibit C

Employer's Exhibit D

Employer's Exhibit E

Employer's Exhibit F

Employer's Exhibit G

Deposition of Dr. David Volarich taken February 1, 2013, with exhibits

Deposition of Dr. David Volarich taken September 19, 2016, with exhibits

Deposition of Phil Eldred taken February 26, 2013, with exhibits

Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Judith Gonzalez

Report of Dr. Judith Gonzalez dated July 1, 2015

Mr. Jim England's deposition taken November 22, 2016

Dr. Ted Lennard deposition taken October 13, 2016

Deposition of Rodrigo Pineda taken March 17, 2008

Deposition of Rodrigo Pineda taken November 18, 2010

Deposition of Rodrigo Pineda taken May 26, 2016

Complete medical report of Dr. Lennard dated September 18, 2007

Complete medical report of Dr. Terry Sites dated April 12, 2007

Complete medical report of Dr. Fernando M. Egea dated August 27, 2008

Complete medical report of Dr. Shane Bennoch dated June 23, 2010

The Second Injury Fund offered no exhibits.

The parties marked a Legal File, which was also marked and admitted as an exhibit at the hearing.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Claimant testified credibly. Rodrigo Pineda (Claimant) was born February 15, 1958 in Tequila, Mexico, is 59 years old, and resides in Aurora, Missouri. Claimant is right hand dominant. He is a legal permanent resident of the United States. Claimant was raised and attended school in the country of Mexico. The highest grade claimant completed in school was second grade. Claimant did not obtain a GED. He does not have any licenses or certifications.

Claimant's native language is Spanish. Claimant is limited in the English language. He does not read or write in English and is only able to minimally communicate in English.

Upon leaving school after second grade, claimant worked full-time on a farm in Tequila, Mexico that produced Maguey plants, which are used in making tequila. Claimant worked on this farm until he immigrated to the United States at age 21.

When claimant came to the U.S. in the 1980's, his first job was working on a farm in Colorado with horses and bailing hay. Claimant worked this job for approximately Two (2) to Three (3) years. Claimant worked on a second ranch in Colorado with horses and used machinery to pick up hay bales. Claimant worked this job for approximately Two (2) to Three (3) years.

Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Employee: Rodrigo Pineda

Injury Nos. 06-036310 & 08-015488

Claimant's next job was performing welding work for a company that produced buses. Claimant worked for this company in Colorado for somewhere between Five (5) and Seven (7) years.

Claimant worked for another company in Colorado that produced horse and cattle feed. Claimant was the operator of a machine on a factory line that produced the food pellets. Claimant worked this job for a period of Two (2) years.

Claimant's next job was working as a welder for a company that produced trailers for semi-trucks. Claimant worked this position for approximately One (1) to Two (2) years. After leaving this position, claimant spent the next year working odd jobs in Colorado.

In about 2005, claimant moved to Missouri and began working for the Employer. Claimant's first and only job in Missouri was working for EFCO Corporation hereinafter referred to as Employer. Employer hired claimant to work in a molding area, where claimant was responsible for separating and storing materials that are molded at employer's place of business. Claimant worked this position for about Six (6) months.

Claimant was then offered a new position cleaning windows on the third shift. He worked full-time, or about Forty (40) hours a week in this new position.

April 28, 2006, work injury

Claimant was working cleaning the windows at the time of his April 28, 2006 injury. Claimant's job duties included lifting heavy windows weighing up to 350 pounds, cleaning windows, and performing welding work. Claimant testified that it required Four (4) people to lift the windows weighing 350 pounds. On April 28, 2006, claimant's supervisor instructed claimant and another co-worker to move a window weighing 350 pounds. Claimant testified that there were only Two (2) people available to lift the window weighing 350 pounds on April 28, 2006. While lifting the window from the table, the window slipped, and claimant felt a pain in his right shoulder.

Claimant was diagnosed with a partial rotator cuff tear, labral tear, and impingement. This necessitated arthroscopic repairs of claimant's right shoulder. Postoperatively, claimant did poorly. He continued to have significant difficulties with his right shoulder.

January 31, 2008, work injury

After his right shoulder surgery, claimant returned to work. Claimant cleaned samples and removed paint from samples and did light duty work using only his left hand for a period of Six (6) months. After working light duty for Six (6) months, claimant returned to work full duty and was moved to a packaging job, where he would wrap windows and place the windows in boxes. Claimant testified that he worked this packing job using only his left hand because of the

Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Employee: Rodrigo Pineda

Injury Nos. 06-036310 & 08-015488

pain in his right shoulder. In order to compensate while working, claimant overused the left arm and cervical spine shoulder girdle areas, particularly on the left side because he was unable to use his right arm. He was diagnosed with left shoulder pain and tendonitis as well as aggravation of cervical spondylosis and treated conservatively.

A follow up MRI scan of the claimant's right shoulder on January 13, 2012 revealed partial rotator cuff tears of Three (3) tendons as well as a biceps tear. Claimant also had significant difficulties with a painful keloid scar over the shoulder.

On behalf of the Employer/Insurer, Dr. Ted Lennard examined claimant on February 27, 2013 and recommended no overhead activity with the claimant's right upper extremity and assigned a 20 pound lifting restriction.

Dr. Ken Yamaguchi examined claimant on June 25, 2013 and noted the claimant had ongoing severe right shoulder pain and no relief from multiple injections. Dr. Yamaguchi reviewed an ultrasound of claimant's right shoulder, which revealed a small, partial thickness tear of the subscapularis. Dr. Yamaguchi ordered an MRI of claimant's cervical spine, which revealed straightening of the cervical spine, mild degenerative changes most pronounced at C6-7 with a moderate diffuse disc bulge and mild spinal canal stenosis.

Dr. Yamaguchi referred claimant to Dr. Chi-Tsai Tang. Dr. Tang evaluated claimant on August 19, 2013 and noted claimant's chronic right shoulder pain. Dr. Tang reviewed the MRI of claimant's cervical spine and opined: (1) the disc bulge at C6-7 was the cause of claimant's neck pain, and (2) the partial tear of the subscapularis, subluxation of the biceps, and partial tear of the supraspinatus infraspinatus muscles were the cause of claimant's right shoulder pain and recommended an injection. Claimant received an injection in his right shoulder on October 24, 2013 and did not have any improvement. Claimant returned to Dr. Tang on August 22, 2014 with persistent pain in his right shoulder and numbness in both hands since February, 2014. Dr. Tang diagnosed bicipital tendonitis or cervical radiculitis and recommended an injection of claimant's biceps to determine the pain generator. The injection was administered on October 10, 2014, but by October 13, 2014 claimant did not have any relief and Dr. Tang did not recommend any additional treatment.

Claimant continues to experience difficulties from this injury. Employer was unable to accommodate claimant's medical restrictions beginning in February, 2009. Claimant is not employed today. In addition, claimant has not been employed anywhere since leaving his job at EFCO on February 3, 2009.

Pre-Existing Conditions

Claimant did not suffer from any injuries or illnesses prior to April 28, 2006.

Claimant's Current Condition

7

Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Employee: Rodrigo Pineda

Injury Nos. 06-036310 & 08-015488

Claimant has a constant pain in his right, dominant shoulder that radiates up the right side of his neck. Claimant also has pain that runs from the right elbow crease to the biceps tendon, where there is a knot. Claimant cannot hold his arm down or have his right arm hang in a downward position or he experiences increased pain. Claimant must constantly change positions in an effort to alleviate his right shoulder pain. Claimant experiences pain with any type of movements or activities with his right shoulder.

Claimant is not able to sleep on his right side after the injury of April 28, 2006, due to the pain in his right shoulder and now must sleep on his left side. He only sleeps a few hours each night before awakening again due to the pain in his right shoulder. Claimant testified that he wakes up at least Two (2) times each night due to the pain in his right shoulder. Claimant takes Hydrocodone Four (4) times a day and sometimes again at bedtime to control the pain in his right shoulder. Claimant lies down for short periods during the day. He cannot lie down for long periods, because, if he is immobile, he experiences increased pain.

Dr. Lennard placed a Twenty (20) pound lifting restriction with regard to claimant's right arm. Claimant does not have much strength in his right, dominant arm. He is not able to lift anything with his right arm or he experiences increased pain in his right shoulder. Claimant is not able to lift his right arm overhead. He has ongoing numbness and tingling in his hands, right more than left.

Claimant continues to have problems with his left shoulder as well. He continues to experience pain in his left shoulder. Claimant does not have a lot of strength in his left arm. If claimant puts much weight on his left arm, it begins to hurt.

Prior to April 28, 2006, claimant maintained the yard at his home. After April 28, 2006, claimant is no longer able to cut the grass or use a weed trimmer. Driving more than Thirty (30) minutes results in the claimant experiencing more pain in his right and left shoulders. It is difficult for the claimant to get dressed, and his wife helps to dress him. He no longer takes showers because the water striking him in the neck and both shoulders causes him increased pain. After April 28, 2006, the claimant takes baths, and his wife helps him to wash his back. Claimant can no longer perform welding work or build trailers for semi-trucks, as he did prior to April 28, 2006. Claimant enjoyed gardening prior to his work injuries. After April 28, 2006, however, claimant is no longer able to garden.

Claimant applied for and was approved for Social Security Disability without assistance from an attorney. Claimant does not recall when he began receiving Social Security Disability benefits.

Independent Medical Opinions

Dr. David Volarich

Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Employee: Rodrigo Pineda

Injury Nos. 06-036310 & 08-015488

Claimant was examined by Dr. David Volarich at the referral of his attorney on August 16, 2012 and June 4, 2015. Dr. Volarich opined that the work accident of April 28, 2006, was the prevailing factor resulting in the injuries to claimant's right shoulder and that the injuries to his left shoulder and neck were a result of overcompensating for his right shoulder. On August 16, 2012, Dr. Volarich opined that claimant had not achieved maximum medical evaluation and recommended further medical treatment. When Dr. Volarich evaluated claimant a second time on June 4, 2015, Dr. Volarich opined that claimant had achieved maximum medical improvement for his work injuries. It was Dr. Volarich's opinion that the claimant was permanently and totally disabled as a result of the work injury of April 28, 2006, alone. Dr. Volarich concluded that "The combination of his disabilities creates a substantially greater disability than the simple sum or total of each separate injury/illness, and a loading factor should be added."

Dr. Volarich assigned restrictions to claimant as a result of the injuries he sustained on April 28, 2006:

- Claimant should use the right upper extremity to perform activities of daily living only.

- Claimant should not handle any weight with his right arm away from his body or above chest level.

Dr. Volarich testified to the following: that the medical bills the claimant incurred for his work injuries of April 28, 2006, were fair, reasonable, and customary; that the medical bills in the amount of $2,164.00 were related to his work injury of April 28, 2006; and that the treatment incurred was necessary to cure and relieve the effects of the April 28, 2006, injury.

Dr. Ted Lennard

Dr. Ted Lennard examined claimant on September 18, 2007, and February 27, 2013 on behalf of the Employer/Insurer. In Dr. Lennard's evaluation with claimant on February 27, 2013, claimant held his right arm and right shoulder with his left arm and with movement on and off the exam table, it was noted that claimant grimaced in pain due to pain primarily in his right shoulder. It was also noted that claimant held his right arm when he ambulated. Claimant's wife helped to dress and undress him for the evaluation with Dr. Lennard on February 27, 2013.

Upon examination on February 27, 2013, claimant had tenderness in the left side of his neck and moderate, diffuse tenderness in the right shoulder. Claimant grimaced with pain with light touch anywhere on his right shoulder (both front and back) and with any kind of movement involving the right shoulder. Actively, claimant was not able to move his right arm greater than Thirty (30) degrees of abduction or flexion. When claimant was asked to grip with his right hand, he had complaints of pain in his right shoulder. Claimant had minimal tenderness in the subacromial space on examination of his left shoulder. Claimant also had complaint of left sided

Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Employee: Rodrigo Pineda

Injury Nos. 06-036310 & 08-015488

neck pain in his evaluation with Dr. Lennard on February 27, 2013. Claimant's testing revealed reduced grip strength in his right hand.

Dr. Lennard recommended home exercises and over-the counter medications, including Tylenol, to control claimant's pain. At the time of Dr. Lennard's evaluation on February 27, 2013, claimant was taking Hydrocodone medication to control his pain and had been taking Hydrocodone for Two (2) years.

Dr. Lennard opined that the work accident of April 28, 2006, was the prevailing factor resulting in the injuries to claimant's right shoulder. Dr. Lennard further opined that the work accident of January 31, 2008, was the prevailing factor resulting in the injuries to claimant's left shoulder. Dr. Lennard opined that the claimant has a disability rating of Fifteen Percent (15%) of the right shoulder for the work injury of April 28, 2006, injury and Five Percent (5%) of the left shoulder for the January 31, 2008, injury. Dr. Lennard further opined that the claimant has a Five Percent (5%) disability of the cervical spine for co-existing degenerative changes and testified that the degenerative changes likely pre-existed the work injury of January 31, 2008.

On February 27, 2013, Dr. Lennard placed restrictions on claimant. Dr. Lennard assigned a lifting restriction of Twenty (20) pounds and limited claimant's pushing and pulling to Twenty (20) pounds. Dr. Lennard instructed claimant to avoid activities that require overhead use and reaching with regard to the right upper extremity. It was Dr. Lennard's opinion that claimant should not use vibratory tools or use his right arm in a repetitive manner. He further testified that claimant could take Tylenol as needed for pain relief. Dr. Lennard testified that all of the restrictions that he placed on claimant related to claimant's right shoulder injury of April 28, 2006.

With regard to the left shoulder, it was Dr. Lennard's opinion that after reviewing the MRI of claimant's left shoulder taken May 21, 2008, the multi-level spondylosis and osteophytes in claimant's neck pre-existed claimant's work injury of January 31, 2008. Dr. Lennard opined that the claimant had a Five Percent (5%) permanent partial disability for the left shoulder. Dr. Lennard did not assign any medical restrictions with regard to claimant's left shoulder.

Vocational Opinions

Phil Eldred

Mr. Phil Eldred is a vocational rehabilitation expert who evaluated claimant on June 30, 2014. Mr. Eldred noted that claimant attended school in Mexico through second grade and has had no other training. Mr. Eldred did not administer the Wide Range Achievement Test 4 (WRAT-4) nor the Oral Directions Test to claimant, as claimant is not able to speak or read English. Mr. Eldred administered the Purdue Pegboard test. Claimant was unable to complete this test with his right arm and right hand due to pain. In testing claimant's left hand, claimant scored a Ten (10), which places him in the Third (3rd) Percentile, which means that Ninety-Seven Percent (97%) of people claimant's age taking the test score better than he did.

Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Employee: Rodrigo Pineda

Injury Nos. 06-036310 & 08-015488

Mr. Eldred opined that Claimant was permanently totally disabled solely as a result of the injuries he sustained on April 28, 2006. The injuries claimant sustained on April 28, 2006, and the resulting medical restrictions combined with his limited education, advancing age, and history of unskilled manual labor preclude claimant from returning to competitive, gainful employment.

Mr. Eldred noted that claimant did not have any pre-existing conditions that constituted a hindrance or obstacle to employment. It was Mr. Eldred's opinion that claimant is unable to perform any of his past work. Claimant does not have any transferable job skills for the sedentary and/or light work levels. Mr. Eldred opined that claimant is unable to be retrained in a formal training program due to his constant pain, use of narcotic pain medication, and inability to speak or read English. Mr. Eldred concluded that it is highly unlikely that any reasonable employer in the normal course of business would hire claimant for competitive, gainful employment. Therefore, it was Mr. Eldred's opinion that claimant is unemployable in the open labor market.

After his initial report of May 16, 2011, Mr. Eldred authored a supplemental report dated November 21, 2015. In that report, after reviewing Dr. David Volarich's reports of June 4, 2015 and November 10, 2015, Mr. Eldred reiterated his opinion that claimant was permanently totally disabled solely as a result of the injuries of April 28, 2006.

Mr. Eldred testified live at the hearing. Since preparing his written report of November 21, 205, Mr. Eldred reviewed Dr. Lennard's deposition taken October 13, 2016, Dr. Volarich's deposition of November 9, 2016, Mr. Jim England's deposition of November 22, 2016, and the claimant's Missouri Division of Workers' Compensation file. After reviewing this additional information, it was Mr. Eldred's testimony that based upon Dr. Lennard's restrictions alone in combination with claimant's age, education, job history, and limited ability to read and write the English language, that Dr. Lennard's restrictions alone render the claimant permanently and totally disabled solely as a result of the work injuries of April 28, 2006.

James England

Mr. James England was retained by the Employer/Insurer. He evaluated claimant on July 29, 2011 and authored reports dated August 10, 2011 and April 15, 2013. In his original report dated August 10, 2011, Mr. England identified the positions of busing tables, washing dishes, and office cleaning as potential jobs for claimant. On February 27, 2013, Dr. Lennard lowered claimant's lifting restriction from Fifty (50) pounds to a permanent lifting restriction of Twenty (20) pounds. After this significant change in claimant's increased lifting restriction, Mr. England testified that claimant would still be able to perform these previously identified jobs.

During his deposition, Mr. England was asked to consider the restrictions placed upon claimant by Dr. Lennard. These restrictions included that claimant had (1) a lifting restriction of Twenty (20) pounds, (2) was limited to pushing and pulling less than Twenty (20) pounds, (3)

Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Employee: Rodrigo Pineda

Injury Nos. 06-036310 & 08-015488

was to avoid using vibratory tools, and (4) was to avoid using the right arm in a repetitive manner. When Mr. England was confronted with Dr. Lennard's restrictions, Mr. England testified that claimant would not be able to work in forklift operation, busing tables, and the other occupations that Mr. England claimed claimant could perform. It was Mr. England's testimony that assuming Dr. Lennard's restrictions, claimant would only be able to work in unskilled light positions that if combined with claimant's academic limitations and the language barrier, that claimant "probably couldn't do anything I can think of."

Other Witnesses

Dr. Judith Gonzalez

Dr. Judith Gonzalez has been a licensed clinical psychologist and counselor for Twenty-Five (25) years. She testified live at the hearing. I find her testimony credible. Dr. Gonzalez is fluent in English and Spanish. She is employed at Forrest Institute in Springfield, Missouri and also has a private practice. She has been employed in this capacity for the past 17 years.

Dr. Gonzalez administered testing to the claimant to assess the claimant's ability to read and write his native language of Spanish. The entire interview and evaluation was conducted in Spanish. Dr. Gonzalez tested the claimant's reading comprehension in Spanish. Dr. Gonzalez testified that the claimant did not learn to write in Spanish until emigrating to the United States at age 21.

The claimant's reading comprehension level is comparable to current standards for students in the First (1st) grade of elementary school in Mexico. After reading a First (1st) grade level book, the claimant responded accurately to questions. When the claimant was asked to read a Second (2nd) grade book, claimant demonstrated problems decoding letters and words. When he was asked to retell the Second (2nd) grade book in his own words, he was not able to summarize the main idea. The claimant was given "an incomplete sentence task", in which words were omitted from the paragraph, and the claimant was asked to fill in the blanks with appropriate words. The claimant was not able to complete this task and provide the needed words. Claimant's reading comprehension testing revealed that he has several misunderstandings on complete texts. Claimant scored in the Reading 1 (Elementary Proficiency) level of reading in his native language of Spanish.

The claimant was able to write his name, phone number, his wife's name, and his children's names using only capital letters in Spanish. Claimant was able to print simple sentences of Three (3) to Four (4) words making errors in spelling and/or sentence structure. When asked to write the Spanish alphabet using lower case letters, claimant was not able to recall the exact graphics. When Dr. Gonzalez dictated sentences to the claimant, he was able to understand the sounds but was not able to write the words correctly. When asked to read the sentences he wrote, claimant was able to read his own sentences with several mistakes. Claimant scored in the low level with regard to writing in Spanish, as claimant wrote using memorized material and set expressions. Claimant's ability to write in Spanish was limited to simple lists of

Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Employee: Rodrigo Pineda

Injury Nos. 06-036310 & 08-015488

common items, such as a few short sentences. Claimant's spelling and representation of symbols (letters, syllables, and characters) was incorrect.

With regard to testing the claimant's listening ability in Spanish, the claimant's consistency of understanding of a short story from a Second (2nd) grade book was uneven. The claimant's limited vocabulary range required repetition for him to understand. The listening results revealed that miscommunication occurred when the claimant was given more complex communication patterns. In addition, the claimant was not able to sustain understanding of coherent structures in longer utterances or in unfamiliar or unexpected topics. The claimant's understanding of descriptions and the giving of precise information was limited. Claimant scored in the Listening 1+ (Elementary Proficiency, Plus).

Additional Findings

Claimant personally appeared before me. I find that Claimant's testimony at trial and in his depositions, is substantially consistent. I find him credible.

As to the credibility of the doctors, Dr. Volarich and Dr. Lennard, I find them both credible. In fact, the doctors have little disagreement when it comes to the physical disability that claimant sustained on April 28, 2006.

Mr., Eldred testified live, and I find his testimony credible. I also find Mr. England to be credible. Both Mr. Eldred and Mr. England opine that claimant is permanently totally disabled given the restrictions from Dr. Lennard, the doctor for the employer/insurer.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Whether the claimant sustained a separate accident or occupational disease on January 31, 2008?

After his right shoulder surgery of April 28, 2006, claimant returned to work at EFCO. Claimant cleaned samples and removed paint from samples and did light duty work using only his left hand for a period of Six (6) months. After working light duty for Six (6) months, claimant returned to work full duty and was moved to a packaging job, where he would wrap windows and place the windows in boxes. Claimant testified that he worked this packing job using only his left hand because of the pain in his right shoulder. In order to compensate while working, claimant overused the left arm, neck, and shoulder girdle areas, particularly on the left side because he was unable to use his right arm. He was diagnosed with left shoulder pain and tendonitis as well as aggravation of cervical spondylosis and treated conservatively.

It was Dr. Volarich's opinion that the claimant was permanently and totally disabled as a result of the work injury of April 28, 2006, alone. Dr. Volarich did not assign restrictions to claimant as a result of the injuries he sustained on January 31, 2008. It was Dr. Volarich's opinion that in order to compensate for his right shoulder injury of April 28, 2006, claimant

13

TI11601168

Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Employee: Rodrigo Pineda

Injury Nos. 06-036310 & 08-015488

overused his left shoulder and neck, which caused left shoulder tendonitis and aggravation of cervical degenerative arthritis, particularly at the C6-7 level. Dr. Volarich opined that the claimant's left shoulder and neck problems resulted because of an exacerbation from the right shoulder injury of April 28, 2006.

With regard to the left shoulder, it was Dr. Lennard's opinion that after reviewing the MRI of claimant's left shoulder taken May 21, 2008, the multi-level spondylosis and osteophytes pre-existed claimant's work injury of January 31, 2008.

When claimant's left shoulder and neck complaints began on January 31, 2008, he was continuing to treat for his work injury of April 28, 2006, and was working on light duty with restrictions of using his left arm only. After working light duty for Six (6) months, claimant returned to work full duty where he continued to work using only his left hand because of the pain in his right shoulder. In order to compensate while working, claimant overused his left arm and cervical spine shoulder girdle areas, because he was unable to use his right arm.

I hereby find and conclude that there is competent and substantial evidence that the claimant's left shoulder and neck complaints from the January 31, 2008, date of injury followed as a natural and legitimate consequence of the original accident on April 28, 2006. I further find that there is competent and substantial evidence that claimant did not sustain a new accident or occupational disease on January 31, 2008.

Whether the accident or occupational disease of January 31, 2008, caused the injuries and disabilities for which benefits are now being claimed?

As noted above, as I find that the claimant did not sustain a new accident or occupational disease on January 31, 2008. I further find that the alleged accident or occupational disease of January 31, 2008, did not cause the injuries and disabilities for which benefits are now being claimed.

Whether the employer/insurer is obligated to pay for past medical expenses in the amount of $2,164.00?

Dr. Volarich reviewed medical expenses and the medical records that corresponded to the expenses. He testified that $2,164.00 in expenses were fair, reasonable and customary. He further testified that the treatment that resulted in the expenses was necessary to treat the injuries that claimant sustained in the work accident on April 28, 2006, and leading up to January 31, 2008. Finally, Dr. Volarich testified that the medical treatments that resulted in medical expenses were necessary to treat claimant's injuries. Therefore, I find that there is substantial and competent evidence to support the conclusion that the employer/insurer is responsible to pay to claimant the sum of $2,164.00 for past medical expenses incurred by the claimant.

When did the claimant achieve maximum medical improvement?

14

Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Employee: Rodrigo Pineda

Injury Nos. 06-036310 & 08-015488

The claimant and Employer/Insurer agree that claimant achieved maximum medical improvement on February 3, 2009. It is the Second Injury Fund's position that the claimant achieved maximum medical improvement on January 3, 2012, the date the claimant last treated with Dr. Yamaguchi. Claimant's last day of employment with EFCO was February 2, 2009, and claimant never returned to work any job again. Claimant did not file for unemployment benefits after leaving work with Employer on February 2, 2009. Claimant applied for Social Security Disability benefits in February 2009 and was approved. It is the position of the claimant and Employer/Insurer that claimant's maximum medical improvement date is February 3, 2009. From that date forward, if the claimant is permanently and totally disabled solely as a result of his work injuries sustained on April 28, 2006, the Employer/Insurer will owe Temporary Total Disability benefits at the rate of 353.21 or Permanent Total Disability benefits at the rate of 353.21 beginning February 3, 2009. I find that the claimant achieved maximum medical improvement on February 3, 2009.

Whether the claimant will require future medical treatment to cure and relieve the effects of his work injuries?

Section 287.140 RSMo, requires an employer to provide past as well as future medical treatment as reasonably may be required to cure or relieve an employee from the effects of a work-related injury. "Cure or relieve" means treatment that will give comfort, even though restoration or soundness is beyond avail. Landman v. Ice Cream Specialties, Inc., 107 S.W.3d 240, 249 (Mo. banc. 2003). Claimant must only show by a reasonable probability that future medical treatment is needed for a work-related injury. Null v. New Haven Care Center, Inc., 425 S.W.3d 172, 181 (Mo.App. E.D. 2014). Future care for pain relief should not be denied simply because claimant has reached maximum medical improvement. Pennewell v. Hannibal Reg'l Hosp., 390 S.W.3d 919, 926 (Mo.App. E.D. 2013). It also is immaterial that the medical treatment might simultaneously benefit non-compensable conditions. Browers v. Hiland Dairy Co., 132 S.W.3d 260, 270 (Mo.App. S.D. 2004).

Dr. Volarich and Dr. Lennard both agree that claimant is at maximum medical improvement as a result of the injuries he sustained on April 28, 2006, and leading up to January 31, 2008. However, both Dr. Volarich and Dr. Lennard opine that claimant will require future medical care to treat his injuries of April 28, 2006. Claimant takes narcotic pain medication every day for the injuries he sustained on April 28, 2006. Dr. Volarich opined that the claimant will require ongoing care for his pain syndrome using modalities, including but not limited to, narcotics and non-narcotic medications, muscle relaxants, physical therapy, and similar treatments as directed by the current standard of medical practice for symptomatic relief of the claimant's complaints. Dr. Lennard recommended home exercises and over-the counter medications, including Tylenol, to control claimant's pain. I find and conclude that the evidence does support an Award of future medical treatment to cure and relieve the effects of the injuries sustained in the April 28, 2006, accident. Therefore, I hereby order the Employer/Insurer to provide the claimant with future medical care to cure and relieve the effects of the injuries he sustained on the April 28, 2006.

15

Claimant bears the burden of proving all material elements of his claim to a reasonable probability. Cardwell v. Treasurer of State of Missouri, 249 S.W.3d 902, 911 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) and Duncan v. Springfield R-12 School District, 897 S.W.2d 108, 114 (Mo.App. S.D. 1995). When a claimant has alleged permanent and total disability, he must prove his inability to return to any employment, and not just the inability to return to the last employment. § 287.020.6 RSMo Cum. Supp. 2006. In determining whether claimant can return to any employment, Missouri law allows consideration of his age, education, as well as his physical disabilities. BAXI v. United Technologies Automotive, 956 S.W.2d 340 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997). The central question is whether, in the ordinary course of business, an employer would reasonably be expected to hire claimant in his physical condition. Ransburg v. Great Plains Drilling, 22 S.W.3d 726, 732 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000), overruled on other grounds by Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.2d 220 (Mo. Banc 2003).

When a claimant alleges permanent total disability, as in the instant case, the Administrative Law Judge first must consider the liability of the employer in isolation by determining the degree of disability due to the last injury. APAC Kansas, Inc. v. Smith, 227 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Mo.App. W.D. 2007), and Hughey v. Chrysler Corp., 34 S.W.3d 845, 847 (Mo.App. E.D. 2000). If claimant's last injury, in and of itself, rendered claimant permanently and totally disabled, then the Second Injury Fund has no liability and employer is responsible for the entire amount. Feld v. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund, 203 S.W.3d 230, 233 (Mo.App. E.D. 2006).

Permanent total disability means an employee is unable to compete in the open labor market. Forshee v. Landmark Excavating and Equip., 165 S.W.3d 533, 537 (Mo.App. E.D. 2005). This means the inability to perform the usual duties of the employment in a manner that such duties are customarily performed by the average person engaged in such employment. Gordon v. Tri-State Motor Transit Co., 908 S.W. 2d 849 (Mo.App. S.D. 1995). While "total disability" does not require that the claimant be completely inactive or inert, Sifferman v. Sears Roebuck and Co., 906 S.W.2d 823, 826 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996), overruled on other grounds by Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.2d 220 (Mo. Banc 2003), it does require a finding that claimant is unable to work in any employment in the open labor market, and not merely the inability to return to his last employment. Sullivan v. Masters Jackson Paving, Co. 35 S.W.3d 879, 884 (Mo.App. S.D. 2001), overruled on other grounds by Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.2d 220 (Mo. Banc 2003). It is within the province of the Administrative Law Judge to determine the extent of any permanent disability. Landers v. Chrysler Corp., 963 S.W.2d 275 (Mo.App. E.D. 1998).

Claimant clearly sustained a compensable work injury on April 28, 2006. All of the doctors agree that claimant sustained permanent disabilities in the April 28, 2006, accident. Both Mr. Eldred and Mr. England opine that, based upon Dr. Lennard's restrictions alone, which he indicated are as a result of the right shoulder injury, claimant is permanently and totally disabled.

Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Employee: Rodrigo Pineda

Injury Nos. 06-036310 & 08-015488

Claimant suffered a serious injury to his right, dominant arm. Dr. Volarich has restricted the claimant in using his right upper extremity to perform activities of daily living only. Claimant takes narcotic pain medications daily in an effort to control his pain, which would impair his ability to perform and hold a job. He lies down during the course of the day. Claimant is unable to speak, read, or write the English language.

I find the April 28, 2006, injury caused Claimant to be unable to perform work with his right arm and required him to rely on his left arm to perform his work duties. As Claimant is naturally right-hand dominate, this further led to strain of the left shoulder and neck in the course of his employment for Employer.

I conclude and find that the claimant is permanently totally disabled from the injuries he sustained on and as a direct and natural consequence of the accident on April 28, 2006. I reach this determination having considered claimant's education, age, academic skills, and past employment, the expert opinions, and particularly claimant's testimony. For these reasons alone, no employer in the ordinary course of business would hire claimant. There is no evidence in this case that contradicts claimant's evidence that he is permanently and totally disabled.

Is Claimant entitled to compensation for disfigurement?

I examined claimant's right shoulder. He has scarring on his right shoulder as a result of surgery on the shoulder. The claimant has a keloid type scar. Given the dimensions of the disfigurement and its severity, I would assess Eight (8) weeks of disability for disfigurement if claimant is permanently partially disabled against the employer.

Section 287.190.4 RSMo, provides that if an employee is seriously and permanently disfigured about the head, neck, or arms, the Division may allow up to Forty (40) weeks of disability for the disfigurement. At the time of the hearing, not having an opportunity to review all of the evidence, I advised the parties that claimant's disfigurement would be equal to Eight (8) weeks of disability. Now, having completed a review of the entire record and having concluded that claimant is permanently and totally disabled against the Employer/Insurer, claimant, by law, is not entitled to an additional amount for disfigurement. See Akers v. Warson Garden Apartments, 961 S.W.2d 50, 57-58 (Mo. 1998) overruled on other grounds Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. 2003) (holding that an additional amount of disfigurement may be awarded only when disability is partial in degree). Therefore, no disfigurement is ordered.

What, if any, is the liability of the Second Injury Fund?

Since I have determined that the claimant is permanently totally disabled solely as a result of injuries he sustained on April 28, 2006, the Second Injury Fund has no liability in this case.

SUMMARY

17

Claimant is permanently totally disabled. No employer, in the ordinary course of business, would reasonably be expected to hire claimant in his physical condition especially considering his limited academic abilities, work experience, education, and inability to speak, read, or write the English language. He is permanently totally disabled solely as a result of the injuries she sustained on April 28, 2006. Claimant suffered a serious injury to his right, dominant arm. The only work that he has ever done has been manual labor requiring the use of his hands. Claimant is on medication that would impair his ability to perform and hold a job. I conclude and find that claimant achieved maximum medical improvement on February 3, 2009. Claimant is owed past Temporary Total Disability benefits for the time period of March 20, 2007, through May 7, 2007. Employer/Insurer shall pay claimant at the Temporary Total Disability rate of $\ 353.21 per week for the Seven (7) weeks for a total of $\ 2,472.47 in past owed Temporary Total Disability benefits. Claimant is permanently and totally disabled beginning on February 3, 2009. From that date, and continuing for the remainder of claimant's lifetime, the Employer/Insurer shall pay claimant at the Permanent Total Disability rate of $\ 353.21 per week for the remainder of claimant's lifetime, subject to review and modification as provided by law. The Employer/Insurer shall also pay to claimant $\ 2,164.00 for past incurred medical expenses.

I hereby find that claimant's prior attorney, Mr. Jim Randall, Sr. is entitled to payment of his lien in the amount of $\ 6,910.03, which represents the full satisfaction of his claimed attorneys' fees and expenses in representing claimant.

The Newman Law Firm, LLC is awarded a lien of 25 percent of the Award as a reasonable fee for necessary legal services provided to claimant. This Award is subject to review and modification as provided by law. Interest shall be paid as provided by law.


Made by:

Karen Fisher

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Workers' Compensation