Sherry Edwards v. FedEx Ground Packaging Systems, Inc.

8 CSR 20-3.030(2) provides, in pertinent part:

Additional Evidence.

(A) After an application for review has been filed with the commission, any interested party may file a motion to submit additional evidence to the commission. The hearing of additional evidence by the commission shall not be granted except upon the ground of newly discovered evidence which with reasonable diligence could not have been produced at the hearing before the administrative law judge. The motion to submit additional evidence shall set out specifically and in detail-

1. The nature and substance of the newly discovered evidence;
2. Names of witnesses to be produced;
3. Nature of the exhibits to be introduced;
4. Full and accurate statement of the reason the testimony or exhibits reasonably could not have been discovered or produced at the hearing before the administrative law judge;
5. Newly discovered medical evidence shall be supported by a medical report signed by the doctor and attached to the petition, shall contain a synopsis of the doctor's opinion, basis for the opinion, and the reason for not submitting same at the hearing before the administrative law judge; and
6. Tender of merely cumulative evidence or additional medical examinations does not constitute a valid ground for the admission of additional evidence by the commission.

(B) . . . As a matter of policy, the commission is opposed to the submission of additional evidence except where it furthers the interests of justice. Therefore, all available evidence shall be introduced at the hearing before the administrative law judge.

The employee's application for review fails to set forth information in regard to the case and award which is sought to be reviewed and the reasons for making the application for a review of the evidence, as required by Rule 8 CSR 20-3.030(1) and (3).

Because the employer/insurer has not moved for dismissal of the employee's application for review for noncompliance with Rule 8 CSR 20-3.030(1) and (3), we consider the employee's application for review as a motion to submit additional evidence to the Commission.

As noted in the employer/insurer's answer, the employee's motion fails to comply with

- 3 -

Injury No.: 17-102900

Rule 8 CSR 20-3.030(2) in that it lacks any explanation of the reason the information attached to the employee's application for review could not have been produced as evidence at the hearing before the administrative law judge. Therefore the motion to submit additional evidence is denied.

Having reviewed the employee's application for review, the evidence, and the whole record, we find that the award of the ALJ denying compensation is supported by competent and substantial evidence and was made in accordance with the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law.¹

Pursuant to § 286.090 RSMo, we affirm the award and decision of the administrative law judge.

We affirm the January 28, 2022, award and decision of the ALJ as supplemented herein.

The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Angela C. Heffner is attached and incorporated herein to the extent not inconsistent with this supplemental opinion.

Given at Jefferson City, State of Missouri, and this 9th day of June, 2022.


**LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION**

Reid K. Forrester, Chairman

Shalonn K. Curls, Member

Rodney J. Campbell, Member

Attest:

Secretary

---

¹ The second sentence of the fourth full paragraph on page 6 of the ALJ's states, "As such, Ms. Edwards did sustain a compensable injury on December 19, 2017, while in the employment of FedEx Ground Packaging Systems, Inc." We correct this sentence to state, "As such, Ms. Edwards did not sustain a compensable injury on December 19, 2017, while in the employment of FedEx Ground Packaging Systems, Inc. (emphasis added)." This clerical error does not affect the rights of the parties.

3315 WEST TRUMAN BLVD, P.O. BOX 58 JEFFERSON CITY, MO 65102 PHONE: (800) 775-2667

www.labor.mo.gov/DWC

JANUARY 28, 2022

17-102900

Scan Copy

#Employee . . . . : SHERRY J EDWARDS 8803 BOYER ROAD ORRICK, MO 64077 *Employer . . . . : FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM INC 13318678 8 160 WEST CANYON CREST DR ALPINE, UT 84020 #Insurer Attorney : JODI J FOX STE 300 10 E CAMBRIDGE CIRCLE DR KANSAS CITY, KS 66103 # *Employer* Attorney: JOHN G OCONNOR 827 ARMSTRONG AVE STE 300 KANSAS CITY, KS 66101 *Insurer* : : INDEMNITY INS CO OF NO AMERICA 13318679 5 c/o SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SER PO BOX 14459 LEXINGTON, KY 40512-4459

Enclosed is a copy of the Award on Hearing made in the above case.

Under the provisions of the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law, an Application for Review of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge may be made to the Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission within twenty (20) days of the above date. If you wish to request a review by the Commission, application may be made by completing an Application for Review Form (MOIC-2567). The Application for Review should be sent directly to the Commission at the following address:

Labor and Industrial Relations Commission PO Box 599 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0599

If an Application for Review (MOIC-2567) is not postmarked or received within twenty (20) days of the above date, the enclosed award becomes final and no appeal may be made to the Commission or to the courts.

Please reference the above Injury Number in any correspondence with the Division or Commission.

DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Continued

AWARD ON HEARING MLP

Please visit our website at www.labor.mo.gov/DWC

Employee: Sherry Edwards

Injury No. 17-102900

Employer: FedEx Ground Packaging Systems, Inc.

Insurer: Indemnity Insurance Company of North America

Additional Party: N/A

Hearing Date: November 16, 2021

Checked by: $\mathrm{ACH} / \mathrm{lh}$

1. Are any benefits awarded herein? NO
2. Were the injuries or occupational diseases 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: December 19, 2017
5. Location where accident occurred: Jackson County, Kansas City, Missouri
6. Was above employee in the employ of above employer at time of alleged accident or occupational disease? YES
7. Did employer receive proper notice of the injuries? YES
8. Did accident or occupational disease arise out of and in the course of the employment? NO
9. Was the 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 occurred on December 19, 2017: Claimant was on a stool packing a box above her head, lost her balance, put the box up, and it fell hitting her on the right shoulder where she had pain in her neck and right shoulder and low back.
12. Did accident or occupational disease cause death? NO

Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Employee: Sherry Edwards

Injury No. 17-102900

1. Parts of body injured by accident or occupational disease: alleged injuries to neck, right shoulder, low back, and psychological.
2. Nature and extent of any permanent disability: N/A
3. Compensation paid to date for temporary disability: $0
4. Value of necessary medical aid paid to date by employer/insurer: $1,718.51
5. Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer/insurer: 0
6. Employee's average weekly wage: 218.89
7. Employee's weekly TTD/PTD rate: 145.93
8. Employee's weekly PPD rate: 269.60. Based on the 30-hour rule using an hourly rate of $13.48.
9. Method wages computation: Wage statement and agreement of the parties. PPD rate calculated using the 30-hour rule.

COMPENSATION PAYABLE

1. Amount of compensation payable:

TOTAL: $0

1. Second Injury Fund liability: none

2

Employee: Sherry Edwards

Injury No. 17-102900

Employer: FedEx Ground Packaging Systems, Inc.

Insurer: Indemnity Insurance Company of North America

Additional Party: N/A

Hearing Date: November 16, 2021

Checked by: $\mathrm{ACH} / \mathrm{lh}$

The above-referenced worker's compensation claim was heard before Administrative Law Judge Angie Heffner for a final hearing on November 16, 2021, in Kansas City, Missouri. Sherry Edwards (Claimant) appeared through her attorney, John G. O'Connor. Employer, FedEx Ground Packaging System, Inc., (Employer) and their Insurer, Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, were represented by Jodi J. Fox.

The parties have entered into the following stipulations:

1. Claimant sustained an accident on December 19, 2017 arising out of and in the course of her employment with Employer.
2. Claimant provided timely notice of her accident.
3. Claimant filed a claim within the time allowed by law.
4. The relationship of employer and employee existed on the date of accident.
5. The parties are subject to the Missouri Workers' Compensation Act.
6. Claimant's average weekly wage is $\ 218.89, resulting in a temporary total disability rate of $\ 145.93, and a permanent partial disability rate of $\ 269.60 using the 30 -hour rule.
7. No temporary total disability benefits have been paid in this claim.
8. Employer paid medical and hospital expenses on claimant's behalf in the total amount of $\ 1,718.51.

1. Whether the accident dated December 19, 2017, is the prevailing factor in the alleged injuries and resulting disability; and
2. Whether Employee suffered any disability and, if so, the nature and extent of Employee's disability.

The below exhibits were offered and admitted into evidence without objection:

1. Corporate Care medical records
2. Daniel Zimmerman, M.D. - narrative report of $5 / 14 / 18$
3. Daniel Zimmerman, M.D. - curriculum vitae
4. St. Luke's Shoal Creek medical records
5. St. Luke's Orthopaedic medical records
6. Robert W. Barnett, PhD - narrative report of $9 / 11 / 20$
7. Robert W. Barnett, PhD - curriculum vitae
8. Transcript of Evidentiary Deposition of Robert W. Barnett, PhD, taken on behalf of the Claimant, on November 10, 2021.

A. Transcript of Deposition of Sherry Edwards, taken on behalf of the Employer/Insurer, on May 30, 2018

B. Chris. D. Fevurly, M.D. - Independent Medical Evaluation of 6/19/18

C. Chris D. Fevurly, M.D. - 60-day-letter of $6 / 28 / 18

D. Erich Lingenfelter, M.D. -60 -day letter of 7 / 15 / 19$

E. Foss McKay, LCSW - narrative report

F. Transcript of Evidentiary Deposition of Foss McKay, taken on behalf of the Employer/Insurer, on October 15, 2021

The Claimant, Sherry Edwards, was hired as a seasonal employee by FedEx Ground Packaging Systems, Inc. (Employer) in December 2017. (Employer Ex. 1, p34). Claimant testified in person at the hearing. She sustained an accident on December 10, 2017, when she was on a stool packing a box above her head, lost her balance, put the box up, and it fell hitting her on the right side where she had pain in her neck and right shoulder and low back. (Id., p38).

On January 25, 2018, Claimant was seen at CorporateCare where she presented with complaints of pain in the ride side of her neck, right shoulder, lower back, hands, forearms and elbows. (Claimant's Ex. 1). At this visit she was diagnosed with right shoulder strain, right shoulder derangement, cervical radiculopathy, and a cervical sprain. (Id.). She was kept at full duty without restrictions. (Id.).

On May 14, 2018, Dr. Daniel Zimmerman performed a medical evaluation of the Claimant at the request of Claimant's attorney. (Claimant Ex. 2). Dr. Zimmerman found Claimant to be at maximum medical improvement and assessed a 20 % permanent partial disability of the body as a

Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Employee: Sherry Edwards

Injury No. 17-102900

whole due to cervical disc disease and osteoarthritic change at C4-C5 and C5-C6 with chronic

cervical paraspinous myofascitis. (Id.). Due to a radial nerve entrapment syndrome at the left wrist,

Dr. Zimmerman provided a 15% permanent partial disability to the left upper extremity at the level

of the wrist. (Id.). Further, Dr. Zimmerman found a 25% permanent partial disability to the right

shoulder, and an additional 20% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole to the lumbar

spine. (Id). Altogether, Dr. Zimmerman found an overall permanent partial disability to the body

as a whole of 58.5% for all the body parts combined. (Id.). Although Dr. Zimmerman noted

Claimant to be at maximum medical improvement, he assessed that it is more probably true than

not that she would require additional medical treatment in the future. (Id).

On February 5, 2019, Claimant visited St. Luke's on her own volition, where she presented

with complaints of right shoulder pain. (Claimant Ex. 4). Claimant reported the pain had been

going on for over a year and it initially started with an injury at work. (Id.). At this visit she was

assessed with chronic right shoulder pain and an MRI of the right shoulder was advised. (Id.). That

same day an MRI of the right shoulder was performed which showed mild tendinosis of the

supraspinatus and infraspinatus with tiny amount of bursal sided scoffing of the supraspinatus

tendon and an ill-defined, slightly globular focus of intermediate signal intensity within the

supraspinatus fibers which could represent calcific tendinitis. (Id., p11).

Following the MRI, on February 25, 2019, Claimant returned to St. Luke's for a large joint

injection/arthrocentesis to the right shoulder. (Claimant Ex. 5). Once again, this procedure was not

covered under workers' compensation.

On June 18, 2019, Dr. Chris Fevurly performed an independent medical evaluation of the

Claimant at the request of Employer. (Employer Ex. B). Dr. Fevurly opined that Claimant's work

activities with Employer (which was only about 60 hours or so over a little over more than two

weeks) in December 2017 aggravated preexisting degenerative changes in the right shoulder,

elbows, neck and low back and contributed to but were not the prevailing factor for her current

diagnoses. (Id.). Further, Dr. Fevurly stated that there is no likelihood or evidence of structural or

anatomical change from Claimant's work with Employer and there is no evidence for permanent

injury or permanent impairment resulting from her relatively brief but demanding duties with

Employer. (Id.). Finally, Dr. Fevurly noted a component of symptom magnification, explaining

that Claimant's report of incapacitating pain of “10” on a pain scale of “0 to 10” was not compatible

or consistent with her professed ongoing abilities at her farm or parents’ house, or his examination

of her. (Id.).

On May 20, 2019, Claimant was seen by Dr. Erich Lingenfelter for an independent medical

examination at the request of Employer. (Employer Ex. D). Dr. Lingenfelter found Claimant to

have subjective chronic myofascial pain without objective findings. (Id.). However, at this visit

Dr. Lingenfelter did not have an MRI to review and therefore could not provide an opinion

regarding whether there was any structural damage to the shoulder. (Id.). Accordingly, the MRI

records were provided to Dr. Lingenfelter, along with results from an EMG performed on June 24,

2019, and on July 3, 2019 Dr. Lingenfelter authored an amended report. (Id., p16). In his amended

report, Dr. Lingenfelter opined that the EMG confirmed only weak evidence of an inactive C7

radiculopathy, which he did not believe explained her symptoms or contributed to her subjective

shoulder complaints. (Id.). He also found that the MRI of her shoulder in no way showed any

5

Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Employee: Sherry Edwards

Injury No. 17-102900

concerns for any type of injury whatsoever, nor was there any inflammation. (Id.). Dr. Lingenfelter placed her again at maximum medical improvement without restrictions, with no need for further intervention, reiterating that he did not think there was any structural damage or objective evidence of anything inflammatory. (Id.).

On September 11, 2021, Dr. Robert W. Barnett performed an independent psychological evaluation on Claimant at the request of her attorney. (Claimant Ex. 6). Dr. Barnett opined that Claimant did not appear to be suffering from any major mental disease or defect such as psychosis, major depressive disorder, personality disorder, or substance abuse disorder. (Id.). Dr. Barnett found Claimant to be suffering from a neurosis, which could properly be classified as persistent depressive disorder. (Id.). Based on his findings, Dr. Barnett stated that the work accident was the prevailing factor of the psychological injury and resulting neurosis. (Id.) He opined that there were no pre-existing concerns and assessed Claimant to have a 35% psychological disability. (Id.).

At the request of Employer, Claimant was seen by Foss McKay, LCSW, on June 16, 2021, and July 8, 2021, for a psychological evaluation. (Employer Ex. E). Mr. McKay noted that Claimant presented as someone in genuine psychological distress. However, her psychological symptoms were not consistent with what would be expected after the accident she experienced at work. (Id.). As such, Mr. McKay opined that Claimant's work injury was not the prevailing factor for her symptoms. (Id.). Her symptoms were best categorized as a Somatic Symptom Disorder. (Id.). Mr. McKay testified that a somatic disorder is primarily "a reaction and over focus, a hyper focus on physical symptoms." (Employer Ex. F, p12). He also testified that Claimant's work was not the prevailing factor for her psychological diagnosis and that she likely has a number of factors which predate the injury that were primary or causal in her developing the diagnosis. (Id., p16-17). Further, Mr. McKay noted that Claimant may be partially motivated by secondary gain, including the potential for financial gain. (Id.).

FINDINGS AND RULINGS OF LAW

Claimant bears the burden of proving she is entitled to worker's compensation benefits. §287.808 RSMo. An Administrative Law Judge shall weigh the evidence and partially, without giving the benefit of the doubt to any one party. All provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law are to be construed strictly. §287.800 RSMo.

Prevailing Factor and Nature and Extent

The competent and substantial evidence in this case demonstrates that the December 19, 2017 accident, was not the prevailing factor in causing Ms. Edwards' conditions. As such, Ms. Edwards did sustain a compensable injury on December 19, 2017, while in the employment of FedEx Ground Packaging Systems, Inc.

Under section 287.020.3(1), “[a]n injury by accident is compensable only if the accident was the prevailing factor in causing both the resulting medical condition and disability.” Mo.Rev.Stat. § 287.020.3(1). ‘The prevailing factor’ is defined to be the primary factor, in relation to any other factor, causing both the resulting medical condition and disability.” Id. “The determination of whether a particular accident is the ‘prevailing factor’

6

causing an employee's condition ... is inherently a factual one...." Leake v. City of Fulton, 316 S.W.3d 528, 532 (Mo.App.W.D.2010).

Dr. Fevurly, Dr. Lingenfelter, and Foss McKay all found the claimant's complaints to be unrelated to the work event on December 19, 2017. In his June 18, 2019 report, Dr. Fevurly stated that Claimant's work activities with Employer (which was only about 60 hours or so over a little over more than two weeks) in December 2017 aggravated pre-existing degenerative changes in the right shoulder, elbows, neck and low back and contributed to but were not the prevailing factor for her current diagnoses. Further, Dr. Fevurly stated that there is no likelihood or evidence of structural or anatomical change from Claimant's work with Employer and there is no evidence for permanent injury or permanent impairment resulting from her relatively brief duties with Employer. Similarly, in his report dated July 3, 2019, Dr. Lingenfelter opined that the EMG performed on Claimant confirmed only weak evidence of an inactive C7 radiculopathy and the MRI of Claimant's shoulder in no way showed any concerns for any type of injury whatsoever, nor was there any inflammation. Accordingly, Dr. Lingenfelter recommended maximum medical improvement and normal duties, with no need for further intervention because he did not think there was any structural damage or objective evidence of anything inflammatory.

Similarly, Foss McKay found Claimant's work with Employer was not the prevailing factor for her psychological symptoms. Most notably, Mr. McKay categorized Claimant's symptoms as a Somatic Symptom Disorder, which he described as "a reaction and over focus, a hyper focus on physical symptoms." (Employer Ex. F, p12). Although Mr. McKay did not provide an opinion on the prevailing factor for Claimant's alleged physical injuries, his diagnosis does provide credence as to why Dr. Lingenfelter and Dr. Fevurly both found Claimant's complaints to not be compatible with the medical evidence at hand.

The only physician to attribute Claimant's pain symptoms to her work with Employer is Dr. Zimmerman, Claimant's expert, who provided a 58.5 % impairment to the body as a whole based on a combination of cervical disc disease and osteoarthritic change at C4-C5 and C5-C6 with chronic cervical paraspinous myofascitis, radial nerve entrapment syndrome at the left wrist, right shoulder pain, and the body as a whole to the lumbar spine. However, Dr. Zimmerman's opinion is less credible than the other physicians in this case as he did not have the EMG report or the MRI of the shoulder to use in assessing Claimant's symptoms. As such, it stands to reason that without the benefit of the EMG report and MRI scan, Dr. Zimmerman was not able to provide a full assessment of the nature and extent of Claimant's injury, as well as the extent to which Claimant's work with Employer was the prevailing factor for her symptoms.

Although Claimant testified regarding continued pain in her shoulder and treatment from St. Luke's Health, the treating physician, Dr. Dustin Miller, did not provide an opinion on whether her symptoms were related to her work accident of December 19, 2017. In fact, in his February 5, 2019 report Dr. Miller found Claimant's right shoulder to show what appeared to be an intact rotator cuff with some weakness secondary to pain and he recommended an MRI of the shoulder. When Claimant returned to review her MRI results on February 25, 2019, Dr. Miller once again did not opine whether or not her condition was related to her work with Employer. As such, the evidence presented by Claimant regarding her treatment at St. Luke's, although demonstrating that

Claimant was experiencing shoulder pain at that time, fails to meet the burden of establishing her work with Employer was the prevailing factor for her symptoms.

In addition to her shoulder, neck, and back complaints, at the Final Hearing, Claimant testified that she had complications after the EMG. She reported that she began to experience tingling in her feet following the procedure. She testified that she tried to obtain referrals to neurologists who would accept self-pay patients but could not find one. However, outside of her own testimony, the Claimant does not present any medical evidence supporting her allegation of tingling in her feet following her EMG. In fact, Claimant does not present any medical evidence outside of her two visits to St. Luke's in February 2019 which indicates she received any treatment outside of the treatment provided by Employer through workers' compensation. Without any report or clarification from a physician demonstrating Claimant complained about symptoms to her feet, this Court cannot substantiate her claims and therefore cannot deem any new complaints about feet problems to be compensable or related to this matter. It should also be noted that even if Claimant sustained some sort of tingling in her feet following the EMG, the Claim for Compensation filed by Claimant did not allege any injuries to the feet. Without any medical evidence to show that the new allegations stem from treatment received for the injuries included in the original Claim for Compensation, the new allegations must be deemed unrelated to the present claim and therefore not compensable.

Another determining factor in the discussion regarding prevailing factor is Claimant's history of labor-intensive farm work on her parents' farm. Claimant testified at her deposition on May 30, 2018, that she visits her parent's farm daily where she does the mowing, cleans the gutters, and performs house repairs. (Employer Ex. A, p7). On this farm they raise livestock, with 26 cows, 20 calves, 23 yearlings, and two bulls in their care at the time of Claimant's deposition. (Id., p6). In addition to raising livestock, in May 2018, they planted five to seven acres of vegetables. (Id.). Claimant testified that at that time she was still performing several duties on the farm, including mowing all seven acres, growing vegetables, and caring for the livestock. (Id., p20-26). When taken in consideration with Dr. Fevurly's opinion that Claimant's work activities with Employer in December 2017 only aggravated preexisting degenerative changes in the right shoulder, elbows, neck and low back, I am further inclined to believe that it is most likely Claimant's symptoms are related to degenerative changes from her work on the farm as opposed to the work she performed for 20 or so days with Employer.

In addition to her shoulder, neck, back, and feet complaints, reports were entered into evidence addressing an allegation of psychological overlay. Specifically, Claimant alleged she is depressed because of the pain she experiences from her work injury with Employer, however, indicated that she was not willing to discuss it other than to indicate the pain made her sad. Therefore, Claimant failed to meet her burden of proof that she sustained a psychological injury resulting in disability as a result of her work accident with Employer on December 19, 2017.

In support of her allegation of a psychological overlay in this claim, Claimant presents the report of Dr. Barnett, who performed an evaluation at the request of Claimant's attorney. Dr. Barnett found the claimant to be suffering from a neurosis, which could properly be classified as persistent depressive disorder. Based on his findings, Dr. Barnett stated that the work accident was the prevailing factor of the psychological injury and resulting neurosis.

Issued by DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Employee: Sherry Edwards

Injury No. 17-102900

Mr. McKay performed a two-day evaluation of Claimant at the request of Employer and noted that Claimant presented as someone in genuine psychological distress. However, her psychological symptoms were not consistent with what would be expected after the accident she experienced at work. As such, Mr. McKay opined that Claimant's work injury was not the prevailing factor for her symptoms. Further, her symptoms were best categorized as a Somatic Symptom Disorder, which Mr. McKay described as "a reaction and over focus, a hyper focus on physical symptoms." (Employer Ex. F, p12). Notably, in his June 18, 2019 report, Dr. Fevurly observed a component of symptom magnification, explaining that Claimant's report of incapacitating pain of "10" on a pain scale of "0 to 10" was not compatible or consistent with her professed ongoing abilities at her farm or parents' house, or his examination of her. Although Mr. McKay and Dr. Fevurly's opinions are not necessarily analogous, they do seem to support a pattern of Claimant hyper focusing on symptoms. When considered in combination with Claimant's testimony that she believes she is depressed because of pain, and if the pain were eliminated the depression would be eliminated, it stands to reason that Mr. McKay's opinion of Somatic Symptom Disorder seems the most accurate diagnosis on the record. Since Mr. McKay's diagnosis opinion appears to be the most credible, the Court is also inclined to follow his prevailing factor opinion and finds the medical record demonstrates that Claimant's work accident was not the prevailing factor for her psychological symptoms.

Regardless of the above assessment of the medical records presented to the Court, the fundamental issue of burden of proof is not met with regard to Claimant's alleged psychological issues because Claimant denies such psychological issues exist. Specifically, at Regular Hearing, Claimant declined to testify about how her alleged psychological issues affected her life. In fact, Claimant testified that she does not believe that she has a psychological diagnosis. Rather, she suggested she is depressed because of pain, and if the pain were eliminated the depression would be eliminated. As noted above, the burden of proof in a worker's compensation claim is on the claimant to show why she is entitled to benefits under the Act. See §287.808 RSMo. It is not for the Court to draw assumptions about the symptoms the claimant is suffering and whether those symptoms amount to a compensable claim. Further, it is not for the Court to determine that a claimant has a psychological diagnosis if she herself does not believe so. As such, in refusing to testify about how her symptoms affect her life and denying she has a psychological diagnosis, Claimant fails to meet her burden of proving any psychological injury.

Based on the overwhelming evidence on the record, this Court determines that the alleged work injury on December 19, 2017, was not the prevailing factor for Ms. Edwards' symptoms. Therefore, while there was an event on December 19, 2017, no disability stemmed from the event.

**CONCLUSION**

Therefore, based on the opinions of Dr. Lingenfelter and Dr. Fevurly, the Court determines that the work accident of December 19, 2017, was not the prevailing factor for Ms. Edwards' symptoms. Further, The Court determines that Claimant has failed to meet her burden of proof to demonstrate a psychological overlay as a result of the December 19, 2017 work accident. As such, Ms. Edwards' alleged injury is not compensable under the Missouri Workers' Compensation Act. Employer is not responsible for any prior treatment Ms. Edwards received outside of her treatment

9

with CorporateCare, Dr. Fevurly, and Dr. Lingenfelter or any treatment Ms. Edwards is currently receiving from any other physicians or facilities. Any past or present treatment Ms. Edwards is receiving for her neck, left shoulder, low back, feet, and psychological complaint should be covered outside of workers' compensation. Finally, Claimant is not entitled to any workers' compensation benefits related to her alleged psychological condition, including any additional or future medical treatment for her alleged psychological complaints.

I certify that on Jan 282022

I delivered a copy of the foregoing award to the parties to the case. A complete record of the method of delivery and date of service upon each party is retained with the executed award in the Division's case file.

By: $\frac{\text { A }}{}$ Aami Caason


By: $\frac{\text { Angela Heffner }}{\text { Angela C. Heffner }}$

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Workers' Compensation