Stanford v Shaw Stewart Lumber Company
Jan 08, 2009OUTCOME: Appellate Court Overturns Denial of Injury
My client, Steve J. Stanford, was a yard man driver at Shaw Stewart Lumber Company. His job required frequent heavy lifting and carrying of materials such as sheet rock, windows, and doors. He dev ... eloped severe back pain on July 3, 2007, and eventually had back surgery. He then claimed the back pain and need for surgery was do to his work. The insurance company refused to pay. After a hearing, a Workers Compensation Judge ordered the insurance company to pay for the surgery and Mr. Stanford's lost wages. The insurance company unsuccessfully tried to overturn the Judge's ruling in the Workers Compensation Court of Appeals. Here are some excerpts of the appellate court's decision. On July 3, 2007, Mr. Standford was seen by his chiropractor for "some back pain," "most in right side down leg 1 week," unrelated to any specific incident. On August 2, 2007, Mr. Standford was called into the employer's office to discuss a driving ticket. At that time, he told the employer's human resources manager, that he had been bothered by leg pain while driving and sitting in traffic on the job. The next day, Mr. Standford signed an "Employee's Report of Accident or Close Call," indicating that he had awoken "one morning with pain in the back of my leg consistent with a disc herniation. I didn't think much of it - just thought I needed an adjustment. Over the next two weeks the pain got worse & worse." On August 3, 2007, Mr. Standford was evaluated for right posterior leg pain and it was noted that he could not recall any specific precipitating incident but that his symptoms were aggravated by prolonged sitting. When Mr. Standford returned to his doctor he was restricted from driving at work and limited his lifting, pushing, and pulling. An MRl scan was performed on August 22, 2007, and showed a large disc protrusion at L5-S1, effecting the descending right S1 nerve root, as well as disc protrusion and other degenerative changes at L4-5 and L3-4. Conservative treatment, including two therapeutic injections, failed to alleviate the symptoms, and on October 15, 2007, Mr. Standford underwent a minimally invasive decompression at L5-S1, performed by Dr. Stefano Sinicropi. Mr. Standford was subsequently off work until December 17, 2007, when he was released to return to his usual job, without restrictions, and he resumed employment with the employer. Mr. Standford claimed entitlement to various benefits as a result of a Gillette injury allegedly occurring on about August 2, 2007. The self-insured employer denied primary liability, and the matter came on for hearing before a compensation judge on July 23, 2008. Issues included whether the employee had sustained a Gillette injury as claimed, Mr. Standford's entitlement to temporary total disability benefits from August 17,2007, to December 17, 2007, Mr. Standford's entitlement to benefits for an 11% whole body impairment, the date of maximum medical improvement, and the self-insured employer's liability, if any, for medicai expenses. Evidence included causation opinions from Dr. Sinicropi, Mr. Standford's surgeon, and Dr. Mark Engasser, the employer's examiner; Mr. Standford's medical records and testimony; and a report, testimony, and a DVD related to surveillance of Mr. Standford in September of 2007. A Gillette injury occurs when an employee is disabled as a result of repeated trauma caused by the duties of employment. See Gillette v. Harold, Inc., 257 Minn. 313, 321-22,101 N.W.2d 200, 205-06, 21 W.C.D.1D5, 111-13(1960). The question of a Gillette injury depends primarily on the medical evidence. Steffen v. Target Stores, 517 N.W.2d 579, 581, 50 W.C.D. 464, 467 (Minn. 1994). "Whether given by testimony or written report, an opinion by a medical expert as to the causal link between the claimant's disability and the job must be based on adequate foundation." Id. at 582, 50 WCCA at 467.
