Pamela Boyer v. Red Wing Shoe Company

[^0] [^0]: ${ }^{1}$ We note that employer did not pay for any medical care prior to the issuance of the award. Employer argues that employee should not receive any award of workers’ compensation benefits.

Employee's job duties at employer included working on her feet and pulling material kept in tubs off shelves. The top shelf was as high as her forehead. Employee would reach overhead to grab the tubs 5 to 10 times per day. Her job duties also involved dye marking, which involves putting material on a metal dye plate, and marking the dye plate with an invisible line. On April 27, 2018, employee struck her right shoulder on a metal dye plate that was sticking out from a plate rack by approximately 4 inches.

Employee told her coworker Tammy Cook about her alleged 2018 injury. However, employee failed to report her alleged 2018 injury immediately after it occurred because she did not realize that she suffered an injury at the time, and she testified that her shoulder "was hurting but it wasn't hurting that bad to complain about it." ${ }^{2}$ Employee felt pain right after her alleged 2018 injury, and sought medical treatment 3 days after her injury. Employee's doctor suspected a rotator cuff tear, which was later confirmed by employee's May 4, 2018 MRI. Employee also went camping during the weekend following her alleged 2018 injury instead of seeking medical treatment for it. Employee did not report the 2018 injury to employer despite interacting with employer during the week of May 1, 2018, concerning her absence from work due to right shoulder issues.

Employee contacted employer on April 30, 2018, to advise she was having shoulder pain, but did not mention her alleged 2018 injury. Employee sought medical treatment from her primary care physician on April 30, 2018, without providing a history of the alleged 2018 injury.

Employee secured a light-duty release, and submitted the note to employer on May 1, 2018. The note did not mention any work incident and did not mention or report her alleged 2018 injury to employer. Employee only mentioned the alleged 2018 injury after her May 4, 2018 MRI of her right shoulder and she returned to work on May 8, 2018 with a full duty release. Employee was able to continue working without any physician placing restrictions up until August 24, 2020, the date of the administrative law judge's hearing in this case.

Dr. Schlafly is a board certified orthopedic surgeon and has performed shoulder surgeries in the past. Dr. Schlafly testified that he currently limits his medical practice to hand surgeries. Dr. Schlafly interviewed employee on February 12, 2019, and diagnosed her with a torn rotator cuff at her right shoulder and the development of an additional component of adhesive capsulitis. He opined that the 2018 injury was the prevailing factor in the cause of her torn rotator cuff at her right shoulder and that her overhead work duties prior to that date may have contributed to an underlying rotator cuff tendonitis at her right shoulder. Dr. Schlafly testified that he relied primarily on employee's recollection of her alleged 2018 injury. ${ }^{3}$

Dr. Nathan Mall completed a fellowship in shoulder surgery and performs mostly shoulder and knee procedures. Dr. Mall performs approximately 200 rotator cuff repairs per year. In Dr. Mall's July 30, 2019 medical evaluation report of employee, he stated

[^0]

[^0]: ${ }^{2} See Transcript at 42.

{ }^{3}$ See Transcript at 121, 113-14.

that he had reviewed employee's May 4, 2018 MRI and opined that employee's job duties of occasionally lifting to chest height or above to grab a 6-7 lb. tub would not be enough of a risk factor for the development of an occupational illness involving rotator cuff tearing. Dr. Mall further opined that employee was at maximum medical improvement from any work injury that may have occurred.

Dr. Mall also did not believe that any specific work injury occurred at the time of employee's alleged 2018 injury. Dr. Mall noted that employee did not have any bruising, swelling, or immediate onset of pain or disability following the 2018 injury. Dr. Mall further opined that employee's single-event injury was not a mechanism consistent with the production of a rotator cuff tear and did not believe employee's job duties at employer would produce a rotator cuff tear based on her deposition, Dr. Schlafly's independent medical evaluation, and Dr. Mall's discussion with employee regarding her job duties at employer.

We find Dr. Mall's testimony to be more persuasive and credible than Dr. Schlafly on the issue of medical causation regarding employee's alleged 2018 injury. Dr. Mall has experience in shoulder surgery and performs over 200 rotator cuff repairs per year. Dr. Schlafly's medical practice is currently limited to hand surgery.

Dr. Mall opined that the alleged impact of employee's right arm striking a dye plate was not significant enough to cause a rotator cuff tear from a direct blow. Dr. Mall testified about the impact required to result in a traumatically induced rotator cuff tear. In this case, the initial medical provider's records do not document evidence of bruising of the shoulder. Based on Dr. Mall's experience, if the impact on employee's right shoulder had been significant or more than a minor impact employee would have had significant pain and would have visited a medical provider soon after the injury. ${ }^{4}$ Dr. Mall reviewed the May 4, 2018 MRI of employee's right shoulder. Dr. Mall also opined about the physics of traumatic blows to the right shoulder resulting in rotator cuff tears.

We also note that Dr. Schlafly testified that he relied on employee's history to him of an impactful event to her right shoulder as the cause of the rotator cuff tear. Additionally, Dr. Schlafly examined employee on one occasion, February 12, 2019. Employee was also able to work after May 8, 2018, without any physician restrictions up until the date of her hearing for this case. Furthermore, we do not find employee's testimony regarding her alleged 2018 injury to be credible or persuasive. The evidence cited above supports a determination that employee's alleged 2018 injury was not a compensable work injury. Therefore, we reverse the administrative law judge's determination.

We reverse the award and decision of the administrative law judge. We conclude that employee did not suffer a compensable injury on April 27, 2018.

[^0]

[^0]: ${ }^{4}$ See Transcript at 254-55.

Since we find that employee did not suffer a compensable injury at employer on April 27, 2018, the other issues in the administrative law judge's temporary award regarding whether employee is entitled to additional or future medical care and permanent partial disability benefits are moot.

The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Amy L. Young is attached solely for reference.

Given at Jefferson City, State of Missouri, this $\qquad 8th \qquad$ day of June 2021.

LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION


Robert W. Cornejo, Chairman


Reid K. Forrester, Member

DISSENTING OPINION FILED

Shalonn K. Curls, Member

Attest:


I would affirm the administrative law judge's award finding that employee's accident on April 27, 2018, was the prevailing factor in causing her primary injury to her right shoulder and that she was entitled to additional or future medical treatment.

Employee testified that she struck her right shoulder on a metal dye plate while at work on April 27, 2018, and felt immediate pain. Three days after her 2018 injury, she went to her doctor for medical treatment. She did not mention the work injury to her doctor because she didn't realize that the work injury could be causing her problems. Her doctor suspected a rotator cuff tear, which was confirmed a few days later by a MRI. After talking with her doctor about the possible causes of a rotator cuff tear, she realized that the 2018 injury could be the cause. Employee then reported her 2018 injury to employer. The administrative law judge observed employee in person, listened to her testimony, and found employee's testimony about her injury to be credible. The administrative law judge also noted that employee's supervisor, Mr. Carlyon, confirmed that the 2018 injury could have happened the way employee described it. On the day of her 2018 injury, employee told her coworker, Tammy Cook, that she hit her shoulder.

When employee realized that the work accident was causing her shoulder symptoms, she reported the 2018 injury within two weeks of the accident, well within the thirty day statutory requirement. ${ }^{1}$ Although employee went camping a few days after her 2018 injury, she did not participate in any physical activity while camping. Employee was in pain during the camping trip, and testified that she applied ice to her shoulder. Dr. Schlafly found employee's symptoms and decision to seek medical treatment within a few days of the 2018 injury was indicative of an acute rotator cuff tear caused by the 2018 injury. I find that Dr. Schlafly's testimony regarding the prevailing factor of employee's rotator cuff tear is more persuasive than Dr. Mall's. Moreover, Dr. Schlafly opined that employee required medical treatment from an orthope