VIRGIL HALL, Employee/Respondent,
v.
US STEEL CORP. and BROADSPIRE, Self-Insured Employer/Appellant,
and
ESSENTIA HEALTH, Intervenor.
No. WC19-6259
Minnesota Workers Compensation
Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals
July 24, 2019
CAUSATION
– SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Substantial evidence, including
an expert medical opinion with adequate foundation and the
credible testimony of the employee, supports the compensation
judge’s award of the employee’s claims.
PRACTICE
& PROCEDURE – ADEQUACY OF FINDINGS. The
compensation judge's implicit conclusion that the
employee's need for treatment was causally related to his
work injuries is supported by substantial evidence.
Joshua
E. Borken, Law Office of Joshua Borken, St. Paul, Minnesota,
for the Respondent.
James
P. Paciotti, Law Offices of James P. Paciotti, P.A., Duluth,
Minnesota, for the Appellant.
Determined by: Gary M. Hall, Judge, Patricia J. Milun, Chief
Judge, Deborah K. Sundquist, Judge
Compensation Judge: Jerome G. Arnold
Affirmed.
OPINION
GARY
M. HALL, Judge
The
self-insured employer appeals the compensation judge’s
award of payment for a medical procedure and various
medications. As the compensation judge’s decision was
supported by substantial evidence, including a well-founded
medical opinion, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Virgil
Hall, the employee, worked for the U.S. Steel Corporation,
the self-insured employer, in its locomotive shop. On May 2,
1979, the employee was on the job site using a wrench on a
bolt. The wrench slipped from the bolt and struck the
employee in the face. He suffered a blowout fracture of the
right eye orbit. The self-insured employer admitted the work
injury and paid benefits. The employee was diagnosed with
sinusitis arising out of the May 2, 1979, work injury. The
sinusitis condition interfered with the employee’s
ability to work and he received continuing care for the
condition, including a series of sinus surgeries. The
employee complained of chronic sinus discomfort, headaches,
and nausea.
On
January 22, 1984, the employee was clearing overhanging ice
from a location on the job site using a long metal rod which
he estimated weighed 70 pounds. A large chunk of ice dropped,
striking the rod that he was using. The rod levered upward
and struck the employee under the chin, rendering him
unconscious. The employee injured his low back when he fell.
The employee was taken off work periodically due to his low
back condition for which he received conservative treatment,
including a TENS unit. The employee also underwent
conservative treatment for neck pain, primarily in the form
of chiropractic care. On August 3, 1988, the employee
underwent a cervical and upper thoracic CT scan which showed
slight narrowing at C4-C5, minimal bulging at C5-C6, and
central disc protrusion at C6-C7. The self-insured employer
admitted the 1984 work injury and paid benefits.
In
1995, the employee began receiving chiropractic care,
primarily to address his low back pain, from Arne Luoma, D.C.
Dr. Luoma’s treatment notes indicated that the employee
complained of neck pain in addition to his ongoing low back
pain. In a narrative treatment summary, Dr. Luoma attributed
the employee’s low back pain to the 1984 work injury.
The employee continued to receive ongoing chiropractic care.
On
September 28, 2012, the employee underwent an independent
medical examination (IME) conducted by Gary Wyard, M.D. on
behalf of the self-insured employer. Dr. Wyard considered the
employee’s presentation of symptoms to be nonanatomic
and indicative of significant functional overlay with
psychosocial behavior in the presence of normal objective
findings. Dr. Wyard considered...
