24-11WC. Karl Brucker v. Ethan Allen Interiors, Inc.

• Court: Vermont

Vermont Workers Compensation 2011. 24-11WC. Karl Brucker v. Ethan Allen Interiors, Inc Karl Brucker v. Ethan Allen Interiors, Inc.(August 31, 2011)STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOROpinion No. 24-11WCBy: Jane Woodruff, Esq. Hearing OfficerFor: Anne M. Noonan CommissionerState File No. CC-51538OPINION AND ORDERAPPEARANCES:Patricia Turley, Esq., for ClaimantAndrew Boxer, Esq., for Defendant ISSUES PRESENTED: 1. Are Claimant's lumbar, groin and thoracic injuries causally related to his August 3, 2010 work incident? 2. If so, to what workers' compensation benefits is he entitled? EXHIBITS Claimant's Exhibit 1: Medical records Claimant's Exhibit 2: Medical bills Claimant's Exhibit 3: Ethan Allen maintenance logs Defendant's Exhibit A: Prepco employment application, December 9, 2010 Defendant's Exhibit B: Helen Gagnon, R.N., records Defendant's Exhibit C: Dan Kurzman handwritten notes, July 26, 2010 CLAIM: Temporary total disability benefits pursuant to 21 V.S.A. §642 Medical benefits pursuant to 21 V.S.A. §640 Interest, costs and attorney fees pursuant to 21 V.S.A. §§664 and 678 FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Claimant was an employee and Defendant was an employer as those terms are defined in Vermont Compensation Act. 2. Judicial notice is taken of all relevant forms contained in the Department's file relating to this claim. 3. Claimant worked for Defendant at its Beecher Falls, Vermont plant for approximately two years until December 2009, when Defendant closed that plant. 4. After the Beecher Falls plant closed, Claimant sought employment elsewhere. He submitted an application for work at Prepco, a medical manufacturing company located in Colebrook, N.H., where he lived. Claimant was not hired, as there were no openings. However, he did see the owners of the company from time to time around town. 5. Approximately two weeks after the Beecher Falls plant closed, Defendant's human resources administrator, Dan Kurzman, contacted Claimant and offered to rehire him at Defendant's Orleans, Vermont plant. Mr. Kurzman thought Claimant was a hard worker. Claimant accepted Defendant's offer and began working at the Orleans plant in early January 2010. His duties consisted of maintenance and mechanical repair in all departments within the facility. 6. On July 26, 2010 Claimant and Mr. Kurzman met to discuss various issues related to Claimant's job. Mr. Kurzman described the meeting as contentious. As he recalled it, Claimant asked to be laid off so that he could qualify for the grant-funded training and unemployment benefits that certain other employees were receiving. Claimant denied that he asked to be laid off. Instead, he recalled that the issues he discussed with Mr. Kurzman revolved around what he perceived to be a lack of appropriate training and safety equipment. 7. On August 3, 2010 Claimant was called on to repair a scissor lift. To do so, he needed first to transport it outside. For that, he needed a hardwood pallet. 8. After retrieving a pallet, Claimant had to push it down a long, narrow hallway. The pallet weighed forty pounds and was awkward to push. As Claimant was pushing the pallet, a co-employee accidentally pushed over another pallet, which was piled high with pieces of broken down cardboard. The falling cardboard speared into Claimant's right armpit. 9. Claimant credibly testified that the force of the falling cardboard almost knocked the wind out of him and caused him to fall somewhat backwards in a twisting motion. A pile of debris broke his fall. 10. Alan Vanier, a manager, was on the floor, about eight feet away from Claimant when the cardboard incident occurred. However, his view was obstructed. The pallet was piled 5 to 6 feet tall with cardboard, and therefore Mr. Vanier could not see any part of Claimant's body from the upper waist down...