FINDINGS: The plaintiff's last demand was 1.5 million. The jury returned a unanimous verdict assessing zero (0) fault to Defendant ThyssenKrupp.

Lawrence L. Pratt represented Defendant ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation.

Thomas M. Lohmeyer vs. O.J. Laughlin Plumbing Company, Inc.
6/27/2007  Carpal Tunnel Claim Denied

Facts:  Claimant alleged he sustained carpal tunnel syndrome as the result of repetitive and strenuous work on the job as a laborer.  The claimant testified that his work involved a lot of digging and jack hammering.  The employer testified that they were not aware of any problems the claimant was having with his hands until after he was terminated for a cause for unrelated reasons.  The claim was filed before the claimant obtained new employment but then subsequently worked for a number of different employers in the laboring field.  Further, he had a subsequent specific accident to his thumb resulting in treatment without mention of carpal tunnel symptoms or complaints.  The claimant presented Dr. Bruce Schlafly as his expert who testified that the claimant's examination revealed findings consistent with carpal tunnel syndrome despite negative electrical studies.  The employer's medical expert, Dr. Crandall testified that the examination failed to reveal findings consistent with carpal tunnel and that a diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome could not be made based on negative findings and negative electrical studies.

Findings:  The Administrative Law Judge found that the claimant failed to prove that he developed carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of his work for the employer.  The Administrative Law Judge found the opinions of Dr. Crandall to be more persuasive than Dr. Schlafly.  It should be noted that Dr. Schlafly was not aware of the amounts and types of work actually being performed by the claimant both for the employer as well as for subsequent employers.  Dr. Crandall performed two thorough evaluations and relied on negative electrical studies to reach his conclusions.  Therefore, the claim was denied in its entirety.

Robert N. Hendershot represented the client, O.J. Laughlin Plumbing Company, Inc../Amerisure

Paul Becker v. Bi-State Development Agency (Metro)
5/31/2007  Claim denied, Violation of procedures

FACTS: In this Illinois case, the claimant was a bus driver in East St. Louis, Ill. On July 4, 2000, the claimant picked up three passengers. A dispute ensued between claimant and the passengers over the passengers’ fares, since their transfer passes were not valid. The passengers paid the fare and rode the bus to Venice, Ill. The claimant testified that as the passengers disembarked the bus, one of the passengers involved in the earlier dispute spit on his face and hit him in his right shoulder. The passenger then left the bus and began to walk away. The claimant parked the bus with other passengers remaining aboard and pursued the alleged assailant on foot. He tried to detain her physically and then became involved in an altercation with a number of individuals. The claimant testified that he twisted his left knee during this altercation and sustained lacerations to his face and chest. He returned to the bus and resumed his route.

The claimant acknowledged that he violated company policy by leaving the bus with passengers still aboard and that his duties did not include detaining or apprehending disorderly passengers.

The claimant sought medical treatment on July 5, 2000, giving a consistent history of the events. His doctor found a small joint effusion and diagnosed a knee sprain. He remained off work until July 17, 2000. He returned to his doctor in October 2000 with continuing complaints of knee pain. He was sent to a specialist and an MRI revealed a complex tear of the horn of the medial meniscus with a probable centrally displaced flap component, patellofemoral chondromalacia and joint effusion. Surgery was recommended. The employer denied the request for medical care and the claimant did not seek any further treatment.

FINDINGS: The arbitrator denied the claim and found that the claimant failed to prove his injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment. The arbitrator also determined that the claimant sustained his injuries as a direct result of his violation of procedures and his role as an aggressor in an altercation.

James A. Thoenen represented the employer, Bi-State Development (Metro).

Rick Ehrhard v. Western Waterproofing
2/12/2007  Tinnitus claim denied

Facts: Claimant alleged he developed tinnitus (ringing in the ears) as a result of prolonged exposure to loud noise on the job. The claimant operated jack hammers for Western Waterproofing in from 1986 until 2/17/99. The claimant went to work for a subsequent employer on 3/25/99 and filed his claim for tinnitus against Western Waterproofing on 7/28/99 while working for the subsequent employer.

Findings: Administrative Law Judge and Missouri Industrial Commission denied the claim on the grounds that Western Waterproofing was not the employer of last exposure. The Judge Ruled that the "90 day Rule" had no application because the alleged occupational disease arose from excessive noise, not repetitive motion. The Judge further ruled that the last exposure rule is not a rule of causation, but a rule of convenience and determined that subsequent employer also exposed the claimant to the hazards of the occupational disease. The Administrative Law Judge findings were affirmed by the Missouri Industrial Commission.

Robert N. Hendershot represented Western Waterproofing and Travelers Insurance Company.

Michael Serna v. Systems Contracting, Inc.
11/16/2006  Missouri jurisdiction denied on Arkansas back injury

Facts:  Claimant lived in the Kansas City area and responded by telephone to a listing of temporary work needed for factory maintenance by Systems Contracting, an El Dorado, AR company.  He was given contact information to report to supervisors in Blytheville, AR, where the job would occur.  He was hired on a Sunday and reported for work at the plant on a Monday.  On Thursday of the same week, he allegedly sustained a back injury on the job.  Upon returning to Missouri, he filed a Claim for Compensation in Missouri (likely for his own convenience), alleging Missouri jurisdiction on a theory that the contract of employment was made on the phone while he was in Missouri.  Systems Contracting argued that there was no contract of employment or offer of employment made on the telephone call because all they do on the telephone call is invite potential employees to visit the locale where the job will be to screen for employment.  The claimant sought medical treatment and temporary disability benefits through a temporary hearing where the only issue was whether Missouri had jurisdiction.

Finding:  The Administrative Law Judge initially told the attorneys at a mediation she would probably find Missouri jurisdiction.  However, after the hearing, the Judge issued an award finding there was no Missouri jurisdiction and that no contract of employment was formed on the telephone call.  While the claimant testified that he would not have gone to Arkansas unless he was sure he had a job, the Administrative Law Judge found the testimony established the Employer's representative did not have authority to make offers over the phone, more candidates than are needed for the job are routinely invited to the screening location and the claimant was not allowed to select a work shift until he had passed a drug test.  Moreover, there was no file or other list that the claimant was on at the screening location, which is something the Administrative Law Judge would have expected had the claimant been previously hired on a telephone call.  The claimant made no appeal to the Labor Commission.

Michael D. Mayes represented the Employer, Systems Contracting, before the Division.

Margie Goss v. West Plains School District
10/23/2006  Heart disease claim denied

Facts:  Claimant was a para-professional teachers' aide who helped special needs students focus in class.  One morning she had to physically restrain a 50 pound pre-schooler for approximately 2 hours.  Later that morning, she sustained a mydocardial infraction that require bypass of three main arteries that were between 90 and 100% occluded.  She claimed the exertion of restraining the child was the cause of the heart attack.  She claimed past medical expense, temporary total disability benefits, 50% permanent partial disability and future medical treatment.

Findings:  The Division denied the claim and did not require the Employer to pay any benefits.  The hearing judge found the work activity was not a substantial factor in causing the heart attack, but that her underlying heart disease was the cause.  Even her examining physician testified on cross-examination in his deposition that she was a heart attack waiting to happen and that if an angiogram had been performed the day before the heart attack it would have shown the same arterial blockage and a cardiologist likely would have suggested the same bypass surgery she had.  The Employer/Insurer presented testimony from a board certified cardiologist that her work activity was merely a triggering factor in the heart attack and that the underlying coronary heart disease and blockage was the real cause.

Michael Mayes represented the client, West Plains School District.

Patrice Hopes V. Normandy School District
10/12/2006  Carpal tunnel syndrome and right lateral epicondylitis claim denied

FACTS: Claimant alleged she developed right carpal tunnel syndrom and right lateral epicondylitis as a result of her job duties as a secretary for the school district from January 1997 to January 18, 2006. Given the date of injury, the Claim fell under the revised MO Workers’ Compensation Statute.

As a secretary, Claimant testified her job duties included typing, the use of a ten key calculator, filing, shredding paper, lifting boxes, answering phone and putting water in the refrigerator. In April of 2005 Claimant sought treatment on her own for right elbow pain and underwent an injection in the elbow. The medical records reflect a history of injuring her right elbow after moving boxes.

She testified she began noticing problems in her hand in December of 2005 and notified her supervisor in mid January of 2006. She was evaluated and eventually referred to a hand surgeon. Employer’s evaluating physician recommended the school district perform an ergonomic study of her job position. This was completed and the physician opined her job duties were not the substantial factor in causing her right carpal tunnel syndrome and right elbow problems based on the conclusions in the ergonomic evaluation. As such, the claim was denied by employer.

Claimant’s attorney secured an opinion on causation by a physician with a family practice. Claimant’s expert concluded her job duties were the substantial and prevailing factor in the development of her problems and recommended surgery.

FINDINGS: The Administrative Law Judge found Claimant to be partially credible during her testimony. Employer brought in the ergonomic expert to testify to her findings and conclusions regarding the repetitiveness of Claimant’s job duties. Employer also presented video footage of Claimant performing her job duties. The ALJ found the ergonomic expert to be very credible.

ALJ found Claimant’s expert lacked the specific knowledge of Claimant’s job duties. He found his opinion was not credible and was unable to provide one specific example of what was excessive or repetitive about her job that caused problems in her hand or elbow. While he did not agree with all of Employer’s expert’s findings, he held his opinion was more credible and gave it more weight.

Based on his review of the video footage of her job, the ergonomic report, the ergonomic expert’s testimony and the expert opinion of Employer, ALJ denied the claim and no treatment was ordered.

APPEAL: Claimant did not appeal this matter to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission and the Award became final.

Elizabeth S. Shocklee represented the Employer, Normandy School District.

Lisa Conway v. Cox Health Systems
10/5/2006  Back injury claim denied

FACTS: Claimant was a nurse's aide. She claimed a back injury from lifting a patient on 1/15/05. She did not report an injury that day. She worked for Cox for 2-3 more weeks without reporting an injury. She testified that her back did not get worse while she was working at Cox. She took another job doing data entry and testified the increased sitting caused her back to hurt worse. Her first treatment was approximately 3 months after the alleged accident at another hospital's emergency room where she gave a history of lower back pain for 1-2 weeks. She admitted the first notice Cox had was the Claim for Compensation filed 4/25/05. She testified she knew she was supposed to report all accidents no matter how small so the Employer could investigate.

FINDINGS:  The Division denied the claim for lack of evidence that an accident occured, citing history in April 2005 report of back pain for 1-2 weeks.  The award also indicated the failure to provide notice would result in denial as claimant had no good cause for failing to notify the Hospital.  The Employee then requested the Labor Commission review the Administrative Law Judge's denial of benefits.  The Commission unanimously affirmed the denial of benefits within two weeks of receiving our brief.

Michael Mayes represented the Employer, Cox Health Systems, before the Division and Labor Commission.

Frank Lyles v. Normandy School District
9/28/2006  Bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome

FACTS: Claimant alleges he developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of his job duties as a custodian from August of 2001 to August of 2005. Claimant sought an Award of PPD for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Given the date of injury, the Claim falls under the Revised Missouri Workers’ Compensation Statute.

Claimant testified his job duties as a custodian include mopping, sweeping, dusting, scrubbing floors, wiping tables along with the use of a floor scrubber, buffing machine and high powered water hose. He testified he began to notice numbness and tingling in both hands in 2001 or 2002. He first sought treatment on his own in August of 2005. He reported to his supervisor that his primary care physician thought he had signs of carpal tunnel syndrome. An incident report was completed.

Based on this report, Employer had Claimant seen for conservative care including physical therapy. Eventually he was examined by a hand surgeon and underwent nerve conduction studies. These studies were interpreted as normal with no evidence of carpal tunnel syndrome. He did recommend any further treatment related to his employment.

Claimant’s attorney had him evaluated by a retired family practitioner who concluded Claimant had early suspected carpal tunnel syndrome, bilateral overuse syndrome and chronic strains of the wrists. He opined these conditions were a result of his job duties.

FINDINGS: The Administrative Law Judge found Claimant’s to be a credible witness. He held Claimant failed to meet his burden of proof in proving he suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome. He found Claimant’s expert lacked credibility when it came to the opinion he suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome. However, he did find Claimant’s expert credible in his diagnosis of chronic strains of the wrist. Even Employer’s expert admitted his job was hand intensive but that he did not suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome.

The ALJ held he suffered only from strains of the wrists and awarded 5% of each wrist.

APPEAL: The parties did not appeal the ALJ’s Award.

Elizabeth S. Shocklee represented the Employer, Normandy School District.

Dennis Dunn v. Jordan Concrete Construction
8/11/2006  Table saw injury claim denied

FACTS:  Claimant and his employer were neighbors.  Claimant cut his right hand on a table saw at his home while cutting wood spacers after regular work hours.  The injury occurred in conjunction with the consumption of alcohol, and a 15% penalty was alleged by the employer.  Claimant testified that his employer was aware of his plan to cut the spacers and that employer acquiesced to this plan and indicated that he would assist him later upon his return from his son's basketball practice.  Employer testified that he neither directed claimant to cut the spacers no acquiesced to his plan.  He expressly told claimant not to cut the spacers; that he (the employer) would do so himself on the weekend.  Claimant's daughter, age 11 at the time of the injury, testified on her father's behalf that employer authorized her father to cut the wood, though she could recall nothing else about the conversation.  Testimony was elicited at the trial that claimant had assaulted both his wife and daughter prior to the trail date and that claimant had entered a guilty plea for third degree assault on his daughter. 

FINDINGS:  The Administrative Law Judge found that, absent a direct order from employer that specifically prohibited the cutting of the wood, employer assented to claimant's cutting of the wood.  Since claimant exercised his independent judgment as a foreman for the employer and chose to cut the wood, claimant was within the sphere of his employment at the time of the injury.  Claim was held compensable, though the Administrative Law Judge assessed a 15% penalty against the employee for violation of the employer’s rules regarding the use of alcohol on the job.  Employer/insurer appealed to the Industrial Commission, which reversed the award and decision of the Administrative Law Judge and denied compensation.  The Industrial Commission found the employer's witnesses to be more credible and trustworthy and concluded that the injury was incurred due to the employee's disregard of several express orders; the employee's employment relationship had been terminated for the day and prior to the occurrence of the injury and the injury occurred outside the sphere of the employment relationship.

Karen A. Mulroy and Raymund J. Capelovitch represented the Employer, Jordan Concrete Construction.

Tina Isaac v. Sigma Aldrich Chemical Company
8/8/2006  Bilateral plantar fasciitis claim

FACTS: Claimant alleges bilateral plantar fasciitis as a result of standing, walking and the use of safety shoes on concrete surface in the course of her employment as an Order Filler over 10 years. Claimant worked without problem from 1993 to 1996. In approximately 1996, Sigma Aldrich instituted a safety shoe program and Claimant participated in the same. Claimant alleged problems with her feet began in 1996 at which time she was diagnosed with plantar fasciitis.

Claimant presented to her primary care physician in 1996 and was given inserts for her safety shoes. She worked with these inserts from 1996 to 2002 with no further medical care. In 2002 she reported ongoing problems and was sent to BarnesCare by the employer. She was diagnosed with severe plantar fasciitis non work related. She then presented on her own to a podiatrist who restricted her use of safety shoes as well as the amount of walking and standing. Sigma Aldrich followed these work restrictions from 2002 to 2003. In August of 2003 they could no longer accommodate her restrictions and her employment ceased.

In 2004 Claimant underwent bilateral Ossatron surgery, which consists of sending shock waves to the bottom of her feet, by an orthopedic surgeon. She was seen one time in follow up. She was never restricted from work or taken off work following the surgery.

Claimant’s expert, a hand surgeon, opined her condition developed as a result of her standing and walking in safety shoes. Employer’s expert, an orthopedic surgeon specializing in the treatment of feet, opined she suffered from a very common condition that develops as people age. He opined her work was not a substantial factor in the development of her condition. In addition, he did not find she suffered from any ongoing disability as a result of the condition.

At trial, a representative from the safety department at Sigma Aldrich testified on behalf of Employer. She testified she is involved in every reported injury and participates in the handling of all workers’ compensation cases. In this capacity she is unaware of any other allegation of problems with the safety shoes or injury to workers’ feet as a result of standing or walking. In addition, she testified approximately 300 to 350 workers participate in the safety shoe program without problem, including her.

FINDINGS: The Administrative Law Judge held Claimant failed to meet her burden of proof. He did not find her expert, a hand surgeon, credible. He also found her expert failed to have an understanding of the specifics of her job duties which led to his unfounded opinion.

Conversely, the ALJ found employer’s witness to be very credible and gave weight to her testimony regarding the fact that no other employees have reported incidents of plantar fasciitis. He opined employer’s expert’s opinion was more credible and denied the claim.

APPEAL: Claimant has appealed this decision to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission with Briefs submitted for consideration in February of 2007.

Elizabeth S. Shocklee represented the Employer, Sigma Aldrich Chemical Company.

Jimmy Culley vs. Royal Oaks Chrysler Jeep
8/4/2006  Employee involved in auto accident claim denied

Claimant, a car salesman, was in his girlfriend's car which had been in for service.  He was leaving the lot in the interim of a split shift, when he was in an accident.  Although the employer was aware of the accident, the employer's first notice that the claimant was seeking workers' compensation was about 15 months after the accident.  At the hearing the claimant was seeking a temporary award of benefits, having already undergone back surgery. 

The Administrative Law Judge denied the claim, based on causation.  The Administrative Law Judge also found timely notice.  The Claimant appealed causation.  The employer appealed the notice issue and that the accident occurred in the course of employment.  By a 2-1 margin the commission denied compensability, finding that claimant did not provide timely notice. 

Attorney, Carl Kessinger represented the client Royal Oaks Chrysler Jeep.

Vickie Wagner v. Belleville Shoe Manufacturing Co.
8/3/2006  Lower back injury claim denied

Sidney Hudson v. RHI America
7/14/2006  Tinnitus claim denied

FACTS:  Claimant alleged that the noisy environment of his job as a pressman for employer caused tinnitus.  Claimant's work history involved work at several other refractories prior to RHI America.  Claimant's audiologist testified that his history of working in brick refactories caused the tinnitus.

Employer's medical expert testified that he could not say within a reasonable degree of medical probability that claimant's employment at RHI America was the cause of his tinnitus.

FINDINGS:  The Administrative Law Judge found the claimant failed to meet his burden of proof and had not demonstrated that his work environment at employer's brick refractory was a substantial factor in causing the alleged occupational tinnitus.  Benefits were denied.

Sarah Fehrenbacher Kraft represented the Employer, RHI America.

Zeeman Jennings v. Independent Stave Company, Inc.
7/12/2006  Shoulder injury claim denied

FACTS: Claimant alleges injury to his right shoulder when a weight shifted while repairing an end loader. Employer denied accident and alleged a Notice Defense. There was inconsistent testimony of witnesses at trial as to whether claimant initially characterized the incident as a work injury. Claimant applied for Family Medical Leave Act short-term disability benefits and stated in the application that the injury was not work-related. The application indicated that the onset of complaints was two months before the alleged 8/03 injury. Physician records from two physicians from whom claimant sought treatment were devoid of any reference to injury at work in August 2003.

FINDINGS: The Administrative Law Judge found that the claimant failed to meet his burden of proof that he gave timely notice to the employer of the work-related injury in accordance with the requirements of Section 287.420 Supp. 2005. Claimant did not produce evidence that employer was not prejudiced by the absence of timely notice. Prejudice was therefore presumed. Claim by employee was barred for lack of sufficient and timely notice to employer; consequently, all other issues were rendered moot.

Betsy J. Levitt represented the Employer, Independent Stave Company, Inc.

Helen Burns v. Sigma Chemical Company
7/6/2006  Carpal tunnel syndrome claim denied

FACTS: Claimant alleges bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and left long trigger finger as a result of her employment as a chemical weigher, which involved weighing chemicals three days per week and setting up equipment and materials for co-workers two days per week. Claimant was 66 years old, was five feet-two inches and weighed 177 pounds. Her past medical history was significant for hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, and hormone replacement therapy. Self-insured employer denied that work activities were a substantial factor in causing these conditions.

Employer videotaped the claimant's job and this videotape was reviewed by employer's Independent Medical Evaluations physicians. Employer's Independent Medical Evaluations physician also reviewed claimant's job analysis and conducted an on-site visit of the work premises. Employer's physicians opined that claimant's work did not constitute a substantial factor in causing claimant's bilateral hand conditions.

FINDINGS: The Administrative Law Judge found claimant exaggerated to the experts the number of pieces and the amount of weight she lifted on the job. Administrative Law Judge also found the medical opinions of employer's expert physicians more persuasive on the issues of causation than claimant's physician, whose medical conclusions were only general and without analysis or explanation. Therefore, claim against the employer was denied.

Betsy J. Levitt represented the Employer, Sigma Chemical Company.

Kimberly A. Ray v. Lewis-Clark Community College
6/28/2006  Claim for injuries after blood donation are denied

Kimberly A. Ray was a student employee for the post office at Lewis-Clark Community College.  One day, over her lunch hour, she decided to donate blood.  After she donated blood she ate pretzels and drank some cranberry juice, then returned to the campus post office.  Once she returned she decided to eat her own lunch, which she had brought.  She did not feel unusual during any of these activities.  She then carried her mail on her route.  During the route she broke out into a cold sweat.  She returned to the post office and, while walking through the break room, she fainted, suffering cuts and dental injuries.  The arbitrator found that the injuries did not arise out of the petitioner's employment and, therefore, her claim was denied.

Jim Gallen represented Lewis-Clark Community College.

Dexter v. Mehlville Fire Protection District
5/9/2006  Cubital tunnel syndrome claim denied

FACTS: A fireman, the employee, developed cubital tunnel syndrome in his left elbow in June of 2002. He began working as a fire private in 1997. He is right hand dominant. He averaged ten 24 hour shifts per month. His duties included household chores, equipment maintenance and training and responding to emergency medical service and fire suppression calls. These duties required two to three hours on any given shift. The remainder of the time was spent waiting for emergency/fire calls or sleeping. The employee also worked part-time for Abbott Ambulance. The employee claimed he developed cubital tunnel syndrome as a result of the use of his left elbow in performing his duties as a firefighter for the Mehlville Fire Protection District.

FINDINGS: The Administrative Law Judge denied the claim. He relied on the defense expert's opinion in finding that: (1) firefighters do not have an increased risk of cubital tunnel syndrome, (2) the employee's job activities were performed intermittently, with sufficient rest intervals between them, and only placed occasional stress on his ulnar nerve, and (3) there was no work -related reason that the employee's cubital tunnel syndrome developed in his non-dominant arm, rather than in his dominant arm. Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge held that the employee's employment at the Mehlville Fire Protection District was not a substantial factor in causing his left cubital tunnel syndrome.

Robert E. Bidstrup represented the Employer, Mehlville Fire Protection District.

Plaintiff v. Unitrin
4/10/2006  Neck and back injuries claim denied

Employee v. Life Care Centers
4/1/2006  Employee claim of compensable injury denied

Employee v. Ceco Concrete Construction
4/1/2006  Back injury claim denied

Mary Beth Rodriguez v. Target
3/20/2006  Lost Wage Claim Denied

Employee v. Techstar
3/15/2006  Hardship hearing award rendered favorable to the employer

Claimant v. Sprint
3/10/2006  Appeal Board reverses and denies claim

FACTS: This was a Kansas workers’ compensation claim in which an employee was injured when she fell in the company parking lot. The defendant denied compensation based on a lack of notice from the claimant.  

FINDINGS: The trial judge awarded the claimant benefits. The judge felt she should not be held to strict notice requirements, since she fell in the defendant’s parking lot she did not know how to turn in the claim as work comp. The defendant appealed and the Kansas appeal board reversed and denied her claim, finding that the claimant was bound by the 10 day notice requirement. No benefits were awarded.  

Brian J. Fowler represented the Employer, Sprint. 

Employee v. Curators of University of Missouri
3/1/2006  Spine Injury Claim Denied

Claimant v. Whelen Security Company
3/1/2006  Compensation denied in severe ankle injury case

FACTS:  The Claimant was a platform officer with a security company assigned to the North Hanley Metrolink station.  Each morning, the Claimant would ride the bus downtown and then transfer to a train which would take her to her assigned station.  The Claimant did not pay any fare as Metro had a policy security officers rode free going to and from work so long as they were in uniform.  Every other Friday, on payday, Claimant’s landlord would pick her up, take her to a bank so she could cash her check and pay her rent, and then drop the Claimant off at the Grand Avenue Metro stop.  In order to access the train platform, passengers must descend a flight of stairs as the train runs under Grand Avenue.  While exiting the landlord’s car on Grand Avenue, Claimant tripped over a concrete pedestrian barrier, sustaining a severe ankle injury.  Claimant filed a Claim for Compensation alleging the injury was compensable under the Extended Premises and Mutual Benefit Doctrines. 

 FINDINGS:  The ALJ denied compensation.  Although the Claimant was in uniform, the Employer derived no benefit as the incident occurred on a public street.  Although Claimant fell at a designated bus stop, there was insufficient evidence the Employer’s premises extended from the train platform to the public sidewalk. 

On April 19, 2006, the Commission upheld the decision of the ALJ in the case of Employee v. Whelan Security.

 Marylou Calzaretta represented the Employer, Whelen Security Company.

Claimant v. Dierberg's Markets Inc.
2/17/2006  "Coming and Going Rule" used in claim denial

FACTS:  The Claimant was employed as a part-time cashier by Dierberg's Markets, Inc. at their McKenzie Point store.   A part of the claimant's job as a cashier entailed occasionally attending training sessions at Dierberg's corporate headquarters in Chesterfield, Missouri.   On March 5, 2002, while en route from her home to a training session at Dierberg's corporate headquarters, the claimant's car was rear-ended.   The claimant sustained injuries to her neck and back and filed a Claim for Compensation, alleging work-related injuries.  The claimant was not compensated for her travel time to the training session, nor did she receive a mileage reimbursement.

FINDINGS:  The Court of Appeals agreed with Dierberg's position that the claimant was on her way to her assigned location for the day, which was Dierberg's corporate headquarters, when the accident occurred, and that the controlling Missouri law holds that going to and returning from work is a personal act and, as such, injuries sustained while an employee is coming from or going to work are not compensable because they do not arise out of and in the course of employment.  The Court of Appeals further found that the claimant's actions did not fall within any of the six exceptions to the coming and going rule or that a new exception should be established.

Karen A. Mulroy and Raymund J. Capelovitch represented Dierberg's Markets Inc.

Claimant v. Owner Operator Resouces Coop.
2/17/2006  Temporary disability benefits and medical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome denied.

Claimant v. Hollister School District
2/6/2006  TTD benefits and medical treatment for fibromyalgia denied.

Deborah Debord v. Benton Elementary School
1/1/2006  Workers' Compensation Bilateral Foot Problem Claim

Facts: Claimant alleges bilateral foot problems as a result of walking or standing on hard concrete surfaces in the course of her employment with the school district as a food service manager. Claimant’s physician diagnosed chronic plantar fasciitis, left foot herniation of the abductor muscle, and heel spur syndrome. As a result of compensatory overuse of the right foot following left foot surgery, right foot complaints developed. Claimant subsequently developed Reflex Syndrome Dystrophy "most likely aggravated by physical therapy on the left foot."

The employer’s examining physicians found no medical causal relationship between the claimant’s bilateral foot problems and her job duties as a food service manager. A more likely cause of the complaints was claimant’s obesity.

Findings: Although the Administrative Law Judge found claimant to be credible, he found the medical opinions of employer’s physicians more persuasive than those of the employee’s physician. Therefore, the claim against the employer was denied. Decision of an Administrative Law Judge affirmed by Industrial Commission.

Claimant v. Cahokia School District
12/8/2005  Employee PPD claim denied

FACTS: An injury resulted from a basketball striking the head of the claimant, the teacher's aid. The employee claimed that the basketball was thrown at her intentionally causing a skull fracture. She further claimed severe disability and ongoing complaints in regards to headaches. The employer's expert medical witness testified that the abnormality observed on the MRI was a congenital feature in her skull bone and not a fracture. The plaintiff's medical expert initially thought there was a fracture but ultimately conceded that it was possible that the abnormality was a congential feature. In addition, a lay eyewitness testified that the basketball was not thrown intentionally at her, but rather bounced off a basketball rim and glanced off her head.

FINDINGS: Ultimately, the arbitrator determined that the employee did not have much credibility and denied her claim for 100 percent PPD to the body as a whole. The decision was not appealed by the plaintiff.

Robert N. Hendershot represented the employer, Cahokia School District.

Claimant v. Employer
7/25/2005  Denial of claim in lumbar spine injury case

Carl Sheibel, et. Al. v. Robert Berkley Construction Co., et. Al.
7/22/2005  Defendant's verdict in property damage case

Elois Woodard & Michael J. Greene v. Allstate Insurance Co., Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., and Safeco Insurance Co.
7/14/2005  Defendant's victory in personal injury case