HABTEMICAEL TECLEHAIMANOT, Employee/Appellant,
v.
TCF FIN. CORP. and HARDWARE MUT./SENTRY INS. GRP., Employer-Insurer/Respondents,
and
ANTHEM BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD, ST. PAUL RADIOLOGY/MIDWEST PHYSICIAN SERVS., ABBOTT NW. HOSP., MINN. SPINE REHAB., INC., ALLINA MED. CLINIC, UNITED HOSP., ORTHOLOGY, NOVACARE OUTPATIENT REHAB., UNITED HEALTHCARE, THERAPY PARTNERS, and OSI PHYSICAL THERAPY, Intervenors.
No. WC19-6312
Minnesota Workers Compensation
Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals
December 16, 2020
MEDICAL
TREATMENT & EXPENSE - CAUSATION. Substantial evidence,
including expert medical opinion, supports the compensation
judge’s denial of benefits as the employee did not
demonstrate that his medical condition arose from a work
injury.
APPEALS
– SCOPE OF REVIEW. This court’s standard of
review on an appeal from a findings and order normally limits
it to consider only the evidence submitted into the hearing
record.
Habtemicael Teclehaimanot, pro se, Oakdale, Minnesota, for
the Appellant.
Brian
Holly, Aafedt, Forde, Gray, Monson & Hager, P.A.,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the Respondents.
Determined by: Sean M. Quinn, Judge, David A. Stofferahn,
Judge, Gary M. Hall, Judge
Compensation Judge: James F. Cannon
Affirmed.
OPINION
SEAN
M. QUINN, Judge.
The pro
se employee appeals the August 8, 2019, Findings and Order of
a compensation judge denying his claims. Because substantial
evidence supports the findings of the compensation judge, we
affirm.
BACKGROUND
The
employee, Habtemicael Teclehaimanot, holds degrees in
accounting, management, and economics. He worked as an
accountant for the employer, TCF Financial Corporation,
beginning his employment in 2007.
The
employee started in the employer’s cash utilization
department as a reconciler. In December 2009, he was
transferred to the accounts payable department. Within months
of being transferred, the employee began experiencing pain in
his neck and upper extremities. Over time, his symptoms
included pain and stiffness in the neck, with reduced range
of motion, pain in his bilateral shoulders, arms, elbows,
right thumb, and wrists, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome,
and lower back pain. The employee reported these symptoms to
the employer, identifying his ergonomically incorrect
workstation as the source of his symptoms.
On
February 11, 2010, the employee began receiving physical
therapy treatment for neck and upper back pain attributed in
part to posture problems. One of the treatment goals was for
the employee to use his computer for 80 percent of his work
day without pain. The employee attended physical therapy
regularly until May 21, 2010. The therapist noted that the
employee utilized poor posture, even following repeated cues.
Therapy was concluded with the employee’s goals not
met.
After
the employee complained of the problems regarding his
workstation, the employer arranged for an ergonomic study to
be done by Brian Huseby, a board-certified safety
professional with 30 years of experience in ergonomics. Mr.
Huseby is employed by Sentry, the workers’ compensation
insurer of the employer. In the ergonomic assessment done on
April 29, 2010, Mr. Huseby recommended that the employee
receive a document holder and a telephone headset/shoulder
rest. He also recommended that the employee be allowed to
take mini-breaks and change positions every 20 minutes when
working at a keyboard, and that the employee’s chair
should be replaced to provide full back support and allow
seat adjustments. Various adjustments were recommended for
the employee’s keyboard and regarding the height of his
computer monitor. Finally, a larger computer mouse and a
wireless telephone headset were recommended. Some changes to
the employee’s workstation were made consistent with
those recommendations.
On June
11, 2010, the employee underwent an MRI scan of his neck. The
scan showed degenerative disc disease at multiple levels and
a disc protrusion at C5-6 effacing the spinal cord. A later
MRI scan of the neck was done on November 2, 2012, showing
the C5-6 disc was now herniated causing mild deformity of the
left C6 nerve root. On the same date, the employee had an MRI
scan of his low back, which showed multi-level facet
osteoarthritis, most pronounced at L5-S1.
In
December 2010, the employee began receiving chiropractic
treatment from Dean Bruns, D.C. On January 12, 2011, Dr.
Bruns recommended that an ergonomic assessment of the
employee’s workstation be performed. The employee
described some benefit from the application of heat and
traction and the treatment was discontinued on January 18,
2011.
Mr.
Huseby completed a second ergonomic assessment on January 25,
2011, and recommendations were made similar to those in the
first assessment. Adjustments of the location of the
employee’s telephone were also recommended.
On May
15, 2012, Mr. Huseby completed a third ergonomic assessment,
and again recommended mini-breaks for the employee. The
employee’s chair was noted to be in good condition, of
the proper height, and with good back support. Adjustments to
keyboard tray and keyboard height were recommended. Mr.
Huseby found the monitor and document holder to be in proper
order and were able to be adjusted by the employee.
On
December 19, 2012, the employee was examined by Sherief
Mikhail, M.D., of Minnesota Spine Rehab. The employee
complained of pain in his neck, low back, and right wrist.
Dr. Mikhail diagnosed cervical and lumbar radiculopathy, and
right carpal tunnel syndrome. He recommended splinting of the
employee’s right wrist and an active rehabilitation
program to treat the neck and low back. Over the course of
the next several years, the employee followed up with Dr.
Mikhail with similar complaints. The employee connected his
symptomology to an ergonomically incorrect workstation. Dr.
Mikhail opined that the employee’s diagnoses were
work-related. Absent from Dr. Mikhail's treatment notes
is any description of the employee’s workstation other
than the employee’s statement that the workstation was
not ergonomically adjusted. Dr. Mikhail also recommended
various anti-inflammatories and pain medications. He limited
the employee, at various times, to no work and later to
restrictions of minimal lifting, carrying, pushing, and
pulling. On February 25, 2013, Dr. Mikhail recommended that
the employee receive an ergonomically correct workstation
including a sit/stand desk and that the employee be allowed
to change positions as needed.
At the
request of the...
