“Respondent appeals Arbitrator White's decision, filed on December 13,2005, finding that of Petitioner's left arm sustained an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with Respondent on March 13,2003, that Petitioner's condition is causally related to such accident, and that Petitioner is entitled to medical expenses in the sum of $4,377.54, 11-1/7 weeks of temporary total disability benefits representing a period from April 1, 2003, through June 17, 2003, and 41.125 weeks of permanent partial disability benefits representing a 17.5% loss of use…
The Commission finds that Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof in establishing that he sustained an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with Respondent. Petitioner relies primarily on Dr. Brown's opinion in support of accident and causal connection. We find that Dr. Brown did not have an accurate understanding of the work that Petitioner performed and, therefore, we do not assess much merit, if any, in Dr. Brown's opinion. We believe that Dr. Fletcher had a more complete and accurate understanding of Petitioner's
work and find his opinion more persuasive…
Respondent submitted Dr. Fletcher's evidence deposition. Dr. Fletcher testified that he provides occupational health services to Respondent and has had a relationship with Respondent for about 20 years. Dr. Fletcher also testified that he is very familiar with Respondent's worksite and has visited Respondent's work site approximately 300-400 times in the past 20 years.
Dr. Fletcher stated that the stock clerk position is a position in which he has placed many patients with restrictions as a result of cumulative trauma disorders. Dr. Fletcher explained that the stock clerk job position does not involve high force repetitive tasks, awkward postures, or vibration exposure. Dr. Fletcher also indicated that the stock clerk position involves minimal physical demands and requires some occasional lifting. With respect to the Bracker insert machine, Dr. Fletcher testified that the parts for the machine weigh less than a couple of ounces and are like small washers and, thus, requires negligible force. Moreover, Dr. Fletcher stated that the Bracker insert position was a job in which he placed injured workers because it is a low risk job. Concerning causal connection, Dr. Fletcher opined that there is no causal relationship between the petitioner’s job duties and his condition.
Further, Dr. Fletcher stated that he does not believe that Petitioner provided Dr. Brown an accurate description of his job duties.
The Commission finds that Dr. Fletcher’s opinion is more persuasive in this case
In summary, the Commission concludes that Petitioner has failed to prove that he sustained an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with Respondent and that his condition is causally related to his employment. Based on these findings, compensation is denied.
This decision represented a cost savings of around $35,000 to my client plus the deterrent effect on other claimants with less than meritorious claims!!
