31-11WC. Joanna McNally v. SOV, Dept. of Children and Families.

• Court: Vermont

Vermont Workers Compensation 2011. 31-11WC. Joanna McNally v. SOV, Dept. of Children and Families Joanna McNally v. SOV, Dept. of Children and Families(October 12, 2011)STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOROpinion No. 31-11WCBy: Phyllis Phillips, Esq. Hearing OfficerFor: Anne M. Noonan CommissionerState File No. BB-57803OPINION AND ORDERHearing held in Montpelier, Vermont on July 14, 2011 Record closed on August 12, 2011APPEARANCES:Stephen Cusick, Esq., for Claimant Andrew Boxer, Esq., for DefendantISSUE PRESENTED: Is Claimant entitled to temporary total disability benefits for the period from May 10, 2010 through August 9, 2010? EXHIBITS: Joint Exhibit I:Medical records Claimant's Exhibit 1:First Report of Injury, 12/1/2009 Claimant's Exhibit 2:Letter from Danielle Lewis, June 3, 2010 Claimant's Exhibit 3:Workplace Safety Ergonomic Evaluation, 12/15/2009 Claimant's Exhibit 4:Claim Questionnaire Claimant's Exhibit 5:Letter from Paul Madden, January 6, 2010 Claimant's Exhibit 6:Request for Reasonable Accommodation, 1/12/10 Claimant's Exhibit 7:Reasonable Accommodation Policy Defendant's Exhibit A: Physical therapy progress note, 8/6/10 CLAIM: Temporary total disability benefits pursuant to 21 V.S.A. §642 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 her employer as those terms are defined in Vermont's Workers' Compensation Act. 2. Judicial notice is taken of all relevant forms and correspondence contained in the Department's file relating to this claim. Judicial notice also is taken of the medical records admitted into evidence at the formal hearing in McNally v. State of Vermont, Department of PATH, State File No. Z-4152. 3. Claimant began working as a Call Center Benefit Program Specialist in Defendant's Department for Children and Families in October 2009. Her duties included fielding telephone inquiries from benefit recipients, researching their cases and logging her activity, all electronically. The work required constant use of her computer mouse and keyboard for such functions as scrolling through multiple programs, typing and even answering the phone. Claimant's December 2009 Work Injury 4. Shortly after starting at the call center, in late November or early December 2009 Claimant moved to a different office. She quickly realized that her new workstation was not ergonomically correct, as it required her to reach too far with her right arm for her computer mouse. As a result, Claimant began to experience burning pain in her right shoulder, arm, wrist and hand. 5. Claimant reported her symptoms to Defendant as work-related, alleging an injury date of December 1, 2009. In addition, she voiced her workstation concerns to her supervisor, who arranged for an ergonomic evaluation. At the evaluator's recommendation, Claimant's computer was outfitted with a tray so that she could position her mouse over the number keys, thus reducing the stress on her right arm. 6. Claimant was particularly attuned to her need for an ergonomically correct workstation given her prior medical history. In 2008, while employed by another department within state government, she had been diagnosed with bilateral enthesopathy, or tendon damage, in her wrist, carpus and elbow. Although Defendant disputed Claimant's claim that this condition was causally related to overuse from typing and data entry work,(fn1) it endeavored nonetheless to adjust her workstation correctly so as to enable her to manage her symptoms effectively. 7. This time as well, after a brief period of reduced work hours, and once her...