Bryant v. John Deere Dubuque Works of Deere & Co., 022420 IAWC, 5059678

• Case Date: February 24, 2020
• Court: Iowa

STEVEN WAYNE BRYANT, Claimant v. JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS OF DEERE & COMPANY, Employer,, Self-Insured, Defendant. No. 5059678 Iowa Workers Compensation Before the Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner February 24, 2020          Head Notes: 1702, 1803           ARBITRATION DECISION           BENJAMIN G. HUMPHREY DEPUTY WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER          STATEMENT OF THE CASE          Steven Bryant initiated this case by filing a petition in arbitration seeking workers’ compensation benefits from John Deere Dubuque Works of Deere & Company (John Deere). The undersigned presided over an arbitration hearing on June 11, 2019, in Des Moines, Iowa. Bryant and his attorney, Paul McAndrew, Jr., participated in the hearing by CourtCall, a live online video-streaming service. John Deere participated through its attorney, Dirk Hamel, who participated in person. The case was fully submitted on July 8, 2019.

The record consists of:

• Hearing Testimony by Bryant;

• Joint Exhibits 1 through 5;

• Claimant’s Exhibits 1 through 12; and

• Defendant’s Exhibits A through D.

         Both parties submitted exhibits attached to their post-hearing briefs on the question of Bryant’s entitlement to payment for mileage he traveled for care relating to his work injury. Neither party requested that the record be left open after the hearing for additional evidence. Under Rule 876 I.A.C. 4.31, “No evidence shall be taken after the hearing.” For these reasons, the exhibits the parties attached to their respective briefs are not accepted into evidence.          The parties completed a hearing report under Rule 876 I.A.C. 4.19(3)(f), which defines the claims, defenses, and issues submitted to the presiding deputy commissioner. In the hearing report, the parties entered into various stipulations. These stipulations are accepted. This decision does not discuss any factual or legal issues relating to the parties’ stipulations. The parties are now bound by their stipulations.          ISSUES          The parties submitted the following disputed issues for determination:

1) What is the nature and extent of permanent partial disability sustained by Bryant because of the stipulated work injury he suffered on January 31, 2014?

2) Is John Deere entitled to a credit for a successive disability under Iowa Code section 85.34(7)?

3) Is Bryant entitled to taxation of costs, and if so, how much is the taxation?

         FINDINGS OF FACT          Bryant was in a car crash years before the injury at issue in this case. (Hearing Transcript, page 20) Bryant continues to have memory issues that he attributes to the crash. (Hrg. Tr. p. 20) He remembers some things, but not others. (Hrg. Tr. p. 20) During the hearing, Bryant conceded that his memory issues are hard to explain and described the fogginess he has by stating that his memories exist, but they do not exist. (Hrg. Tr. p. 20)          Bryant was candid during his hearing testimony. When the lingering effects of the car crash on his memory caused him not to remember something, he said so. (Hrg. Tr. pp. 19, 20) Bryant did not attempt to testify to something he could not recall. His testimony was therefore generally credible despite memory issues due to the crash.          On August 13, 2004, Bryant worked for Lab Safety Supply. (Hrg. Tr. pp. 18–19) He injured his right knee in a crash while driving a forklift. (Hrg. Tr. pp. 18–19) Bryant sustained a bucket-handle tear in the posterior horn of the medial meniscus that required surgery. (Joint Exhibit 1, pp. 6–9) Daniel Sellman, M.D., opined that Bryant sustained “permanent partial disability estimated at 5% related to the meniscectomy.” (Jt. Ex. 1, p. 13) Bryant was released to return to work without restrictions. (Jt. Ex. 1, p. 13) The evidence does not establish that Dr. Sellman used the Fifth Edition of the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, published by the American Medical Association (AMA) in making this permanent partial disability rating.          Bryant believes he had an attorney represent him in the case stemming from his 2004 right knee injury, but he could not remember who that attorney might have been. (Hrg. Tr. p. 63) Bryant’s attempts to find the attorney were fruitless. (Hrg. Tr. p. 63) There is no evidence that Bryant received payment of any permanent partial disability benefits relating to the 2004 injury.          Bryant had no problems with his right knee following the 2004 injury. (Hrg. Tr. p. 21) He was under work restrictions for a period of time, but eventually was able to work without any. In fact, Bryant did not work within any work restrictions for about 10 years following the surgery. (Jt. Ex. 1, p. 12–13; Hrg. Tr. p. 21)          Bryant went to work for John Deere in 2011. (Hrg. Tr. p. 21) He was able to work shifts over eight hours in duration daily for a month straight, have a day or two off, and then work another month straight of mandatory overtime without experiencing any physical issues. (Hrg. Tr. p. 20) Bryant had no health condition that negatively affected his ability to do his job at John Deere, including working mandatory overtime, until January 31, 2014, the stipulated date of injury. (Hrg. Tr. p. 21)          The John Deere parking lot was covered in snow when Bryant arrived to work on January 31, 2014. (Hrg. Tr. p. 29) Bryant slipped and fell on snow-covered ice while walking from his parked vehicle into work. (Hrg. Tr. p. 29; Claimant’s Ex. 1) Bryant’s right knee tightened up while he finished the walk into the building, so he reported the injury and received medical care. (Hrg. Tr. pp. 29–30)          Bryant underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of his right knee. (Jt. Ex. 4) Dr. Kimberly Deppe reviewed the MRI and opined:

There appears to be in mild extrusion of medial and lateral menisci. Lateral meniscus demonstrates intrameniscal degenerative change anteriorly. Otherwise normal. The medial meniscus also demonstrates some intrameniscal degenerative change. At mid body on coronal sequence, the medial meniscus appears blunted/truncated consistent with a meniscal tear/maceration.

(Jt. Ex. 4, pp. 1–2) Dr. Deppe made the following assessment:

1. Multiloculated/septated Baker’s cyst with surrounding fatty fascia streaky intensity changes suggesting either Baker’s cyst leak/rupture or infected Baker’s cyst. Correlate clinically.

2. Moderately large knee joint effusion.

3. Mild hypertrophic arthrosis of the knee joints without cystic degeneration.

4. Mild chondromalacia patella/femoral condyles without subchondral bone defect.

5. Mid body medial meniscus tear/maceration.

(Jt. Ex. 4, p. 2)          David Field, M.D., provided authorized medical care for Bryant’s injured knee. (See Jt. Ex. 3; see also Defendant’s Ex. D) Dr. Field reviewed an MRI of Bryant’s right knee and opined on February 24, 2014, that he agreed generally with the report. (Jt. Ex. 3, p. 1) He noted that he did not “see any major disruption of the medial meniscus, although there certainly are some changes seen that could be interpreted as a new injury v. old surgery to that area.” (Jt. Ex. 3, p. 1) Dr. Field opted to perform a diagnostic arthroscopy “due to his ongoing, persistent symptoms suggesting a mechanical condition within the knee itself.” (Jt. Ex. 3, p. 1)          On March 12, 2014, Dr. Field performed an arthroscopy on Bryant’s right knee. (Jt. Ex. 3, p. 2; Jt. Ex. 5, p. 1) Dr. Field noted in the operative report:

On initial inspection of the knee on the medial side, it appeared that the patient damaged his medial meniscus, had loosened its attachment to the tibial side and the meniscus was elevated and fragmented in its central 3^rd. We contoured the meniscus back to a firm, stable rim and a feeling that the remaining rim that was checked posteriorly was stable. The middle of the meniscus is anteriorly stable. There was some [indecipherable] of the medial femoral condyle, which we debrided, was very light. The anterior cruciate and posterior cruciate ligaments were intact. On the lateral side, we probed the entire lateral meniscus, it was normal. The articular surface was normal. Patellofemoral groove had a lot of inflamed synovium like a medial plical shelf that would be debrided back. There was some surface wear of the central portion of patellofemoral groove, which was debrided. The undersurface of patella, however, was intact. We made sure that final medial meniscal rim was stable.

         (Jt. Ex. 5, p. 1)          Bryant saw Dr. Field for a...