Joseph E. Ford SS# xxx, Plaintiff
v.
Dils, Adrian, Defendant
No. 2006-120
Michigan Workers Compensation
State of Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth Board of Magistrates
June 28, 2005
The
social security number and dates of birth have been redacted
from this opinion.
GARRY
GOOLSBY 228G, JUDGE
SUPPLEMENTAL
OPINION
This
matter returns to the Board of Magistrates per the opinion,
2005 ACO #273, and order of the Workers’ Compensation
Appellate Commission, dated December 13, 2005. The Commission
reversed Magistrate Crary Grattan, who denied benefits in an
opinion and order mailed September 29, 2004. The Commission
remanded this matter for proceedings consistent with its
opinion.
The
Commission directs the Board to make findings of fact as to
whether the proofs accepted “meet the requirements of
Rakestraw and why, or why
not.” I am further directed to “determine whether
the activity plaintiff performed for defendant through his
last day of work is an activity that produced a condition
related to the employment that is medically distinguishable
from what went on before, such that an injury
occurred.” This inquiry is limited to plaintiff’s
knee as the WCAC agreed with Magistrate Grattan’s
finding that Plaintiff failed to show disability related to
his hands or shoulder.
The
facts of this case are laid out in former Magistrate
Grattan’s opinion and will not be fully repeated here.
It is clear Plaintiff had a total knee replacement in October
1996 following a knee injury on January 27, 1995. He
subsequently returned to work with a 15 pound lifting
restriction, no kneeling, squatting or climbing ladders.
Plaintiff contended his knee was stable until his return to
work from a non-work condition in May or June of 2002. At
that time, according to Plaintiff, the motorized cart he had
previously used to get around the plant was not available for
his use, requiring a lot of walking. He testified he was
unable to perform the job as his knee became swollen from the
activity. He testified after working one day he went to see
Dr. Beer in Toledo, Ohio who updated his restrictions. After
presenting those restrictions, Plaintiff was informed there
was no job available within his restrictions.
Plaintiff’s Exhibit #5.
...
