Gilliam, 032919 WIWC, 2011-009541

Case DateMarch 29, 2019
CourtWisconsin
Annette Gilliam Applicant
Sargento Foods, Inc. Employer
Federal Ins. Co. Insurer
Claim No. 2011-009541
Wisconsin Workers Compensation
State of Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission
March 29, 2019
          Atty. Douglas M. Feldman           Atty. Joseph J. Voelkner           WORKER’S COMPENSATION DECISION[1]           David B. Falstad, Chairperson          Order          The commission modifies and affirms the decision of the administrative law judge. Accordingly, the application for benefits is dismissed.          By the Commission:           Georgia E. Maxwell, Commissioner, Michael H. Gillick, Commissioner          Procedural Posture          This case is before the commission to consider the applicant’s entitlement to worker’s compensation benefits. The applicant filed a hearing application in June of 2011, alleging a left ankle/left joint injury caused by walking quickly from one end of a line to the scraping room on March 22, 2011. She filed another hearing application in October of 2017 alleging a left ankle injury caused by “Stepped into/onto drain cover” on March 22, 2011. The employer and its insurer (collectively, the respondent) conceded jurisdictional facts and an average weekly wage of $857.27. An administrative law judge for the Department of Administration, Division of Hearings and Appeals, Office of Worker’s Compensation Hearings, heard the matter on May 21, 2018, and issued a decision on August 15, 2018, dismissing the application. The applicant filed a timely petition for commission review.          The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties and has independently reviewed the evidence submitted at the hearing. Based on its review, the commission modifies and affirms the decision of the administrative law judge.          Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law          The commission makes the same findings of fact and conclusions of law as stated in the decision of the administrative law judge and incorporates them by reference into the commission’s decision, subject to the following:          Modifications          On page 4 of the decision, replace the second and third sentences of the third paragraph of the Findings of Fact with:
In the recorded statement taken by the insurance carrier, the applicant indicated she was walking and felt like she twisted or twitched her ankle. She indicated that she felt a pull or twist in her ankle that stopped her in her tracks for a second.
         On page 3 of the decision, in the fifth paragraph, replace the first word, “Do,” with “Due.”          Memorandum Opinion          The applicant, who was born in 1976, worked as a process technician for the employer on a cheese packaging production line. She alleges that she injured her left ankle when she was walking across the floor on March 22, 2011, and that the injury necessitated medical treatment, including two surgeries. The respondent denies a work injury.          The issues in this case are whether the applicant sustained a work-related left ankle injury by accident arising out of and incidental to her employment on March 22, 2011, the nature and extent of any disability, and the respondent’s liability for medical expenses and indemnity. The applicant has the burden of proving beyond a legitimate doubt all the facts necessary to establish a claim for compensation.2 Compensation must be denied if a legitimate doubt exists regarding the facts necessary to establish a claim, but not every doubt is automatically legitimate or sufficient to deny compensation.3 Legitimate doubt must arise from contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence, not simply from intuition.4          The applicant argues that her ankle condition was not idiopathic (a force or thing solely personal to the applicant) or the manifestation of a preexisting condition, but that it was the result of a traumatic injury. The applicant argues that, construing the requirement of cause liberally, she has met her burden of proof. Prior to the work incident, the applicant was asymptomatic. She asserts that she injured her ankle when she walked on the uneven surface of the drain area as she walked across the floor to notify employees to take a break. She asserts that she walked quickly on this uneven drain area and felt a sharp pain in her left ankle which eventually turned into a throbbing. She notes that she reported the incident to her supervisor and sought treatment immediately on March 22. ...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT