Houghtaling v. Bemis Co., Inc., 090607 NEWC, 0268

Case DateSeptember 06, 2007
CourtNebraska
MICHAEL G. HOUGHTALING, Plaintiff,
v.
BEMIS COMPANY, INC., Defendant.
No. 0268
DOC 207
Nebraska Workers Compensation
September 6, 2007
          Justin High, Attorney at Law           Jon S. Reid, Attorney at Law Lamson, Dugan & Murray           AWARD           Michael P. Cavel, JUDGE          This cause came on for hearing before the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court at Omaha, Douglas County, Nebraska, on August 31, 2007, on the pretrial order of August 22, 2007, and on the evidence, Judge Michael P. Cavel, one of the judges of said court, presiding. The plaintiff appeared in person and was represented by counsel. The defendant was represented by counsel. Testimony was taken, evidence adduced, cause submitted, and the Court, being fully advised in the premises, finds:          I.          The parties have stipulated, and the Court finds, that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant on November 7, 2006, at an average weekly wage of $669.78.          II.          The first issue for the Court to resolve concerns whether the plaintiff suffered injury by accident on November 7, 2006, arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment. The plaintiff has adduced an opinion from Dr. Jason J. Mickels that the plaintiff’s bilateral carpel tunnel syndrome was caused by the performance of his job duties as a machine operator at Bemis Company, Inc.. Dr. Halgren, a physician at CompChoice, expressed the opinion that the plaintiff’s job description does not describe duties which require the repetitive use of his hands. Consequently, Dr. Halgren found there to be no relationship between the plaintiff’s work duties and his carpel tunnel syndrome. Dr. Dean Wampler, Director of CompChoice, noted that the plaintiff described in his deposition that he would also work as an offbearer and utility baler once his machine was up and running without problems. Dr. Wampler indicated in his report of August 27, 2007, which is before the Court as Exhibit 12, that the plaintiff’s alternate job duties could contribute to his carpel tunnel syndrome if he were spending more than 50 percent of his total work time...

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