99-08886-H-3942. Smith vs. Duo-Fast Corporation.
Case Date | September 09, 2005 |
Court | Mississippi |
Mississippi Worker Compensation
2005.
99-08886-H-3942.
Smith vs. Duo-Fast Corporation
JUDY SMITH CLAIMANT VS. DUO-FAST CORPORATION EMPLOYER AND
ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. CARRIER
MISSISSIPPI WORKERS'
COMPENSATION COMMISSION MWCC
NO. 99-08886-H-3942Representing Claimant: Al Chadick, Esquire, Kosciusko, MS
Representing Employer and Carrier: William S. Adams, Jr., Esquire,
Cleveland, MS
FULL COMMISSION ORDER
The above styled claim was heard by the Commission on August 22,
2005 pursuant to the Employer's and Carrier's Petition for Review. The Employer
and Carrier argue that the Administrative Judge erred in awarding the Claimant
permanent partial disability benefits representing a 100% loss of use of her
left arm, and a 50% loss of use of her right arm. We agree, and reverse.
1.
It is admitted that Judy Smith received an electrical shock
injury to both arms during the course of scope of her employment with Duo Fast
on June 15, 1999. At the time, she earned an average of $422.20 per week. There
is also no credible dispute that she was temporarily and totally disabled from
June 15, 1999 through December 5, 2001. The Employer/Carrier has paid all but
approximately two weeks of the benefits due for this period.
The only question that draws our attention concerns the extent of
permanent disability attributable to this injury. The Claimant was treated by a
number of different physicians, but the Administrative Judge relied largely on
the opinions of Dr. Lindley, an orthopedic surgeon who first saw the Claimant
on August 24, 2000. She diagnosed right carpal tunnel syndrome, and
hypersensitivity and decreased range of motion in the left hand due to previous
electrical shock. Dr. Lindley treated the Claimant through February 1, 2001,
and did not see her again until July 16, 2003 for a final evaluation of her
work capacity. Dr. Lindley assigned a permanent impairment rating of 4.5% to
the left upper extremity, and no impairment to the right upper extremity. Dr.
Lindley did not think Claimant could return to her work at Duo-Fast as a
machine operator, and gave the following restrictions:
. . . no repetitive digital flexion or extension or wrist flexion or extension, no cold environment meaning less than 65 degrees Fahrenheit, no use of vibratory or air tools, no lifting, pulling or pushing or twisting greater than 10 lbs with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial