ANGELA M. KRONBERGER, Employee/Respondent,
v.
3M COS./CAPITAL SAFETY and OLD REPUBLIC INS./SEDGWICK CLAIMS MGMT., Employer-Insurer/Appellants,
and
MAYO CLINIC, MINN. DEP’T OF EMPLOYMENT AND ECON. DEV. (DEED), LAKE CITY FAMILY PHYSICIANS, HEALTHPARTNERS, and 3M COS., Intervenors.
No. WC18-6165
Minnesota Workers Compensation
Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals
October 11, 2018
GILLETTE
INJURY – SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Substantial evidence in
the record, including adequately founded expert medical
opinion and the employee’s credible testimony, supports
the compensation judge’s finding that the employee
sustained a Gillette injury to her right shoulder as
a result of her work activities.
NOTICE
OF INJURY – SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Substantial evidence
in the record supports the compensation judge’s
conclusion that the employee’s delay in providing
notice of her injury to her employer was excusable due to
ignorance of fact.
Gerald
S. Weinrich, Weinrich Law Office, Rochester, Minnesota, for
the Respondent.
Gregg
A. Johnson and Amee Pham, Heacox, Hartman, Koshmrl, Cosgriff,
Johnson, Lane & Feenstra, P.A., St. Paul, Minnesota, for
the Appellants.
Determined by: Sean M. Quinn, Judge, Patricia J. Milun, Chief
Judge, Deborah K. Sundquist, Judge
Compensation Judge: Miriam P. Rykken
Affirmed
in part, vacated and remanded in part.
OPINION
SEAN
M. QUINN, Judge.
The
employer and insurer appeal from the decision of the
compensation judge on a number of grounds. We affirm in part,
and vacate and remand in part.
BACKGROUND
In
January 2015, the employee was hired by a temporary service
agency to do assembly work at the employer. Soon, she was
directly hired. She maintained essentially the same job from
January 2015 until May 2016. Before she began working with
the employer, the employee had no prior symptoms or medical
treatment for her right shoulder.[1
The
employee worked on assembly lines involved in the
manufacturing of safety harnesses, such as those worn by
roofers to prevent falling. All employees would rotate, every
one to two hours, between different stations within the
assembly process. At hearing, the employee’s supervisor
testified work station rotations were done for ergonomic
reasons so employees could vary duties and the parts of their
bodies being exerted. (T. 106.) He testified less than five
percent of the work activities involved overhead reaching,
and the work did not require more than 10 pounds of lifting.
(T. 107; 110.) The physical demands of the employee’s
job duties included pulling cables, slicing cables, reaching
for parts, wrapping cable, operating a power screwdriver, and
pushing and pulling. As the employee was right-hand dominant,
she would use her right upper extremity to do the heavier
pulling and holding. At times, her arm would be jerked by the
pull of a cable. She would occasionally have to reach her
hand above shoulder level to grab a part.
In late
2015, the employee began noticing symptoms in her right
shoulder.2 The symptoms were most prominent at
the top of her shoulder and near her shoulder blades.
Soreness would increase during the work day, and when at home
she would relax, apply ice or heat, and/or take
over-the-counter analgesic medicine. The symptoms would
improve at night and eventually went away. The employee
believed her shoulder pain was due to being busy at work, but
given the symptoms went away on their own, she did not think
much of it.
In
early 2016, the employee again experienced achiness in her
right shoulder. The pain was increasing and movement resulted
in catching and clicking. Her home treatments did not resolve
the symptoms, so on May 3, 2016, the employee went to see her
family doctor, Dr. Thomas Ziebarth. Dr. Ziebarth noted the
employee’s complaints of pain with lifting her arm
overhead and feeling like her shoulder had popped out of
place. The employee reported symptoms since the prior autumn
that had worsened over the past weekend, though she could not
recall a specific injury. Dr. Ziebarth also noted the
employee’s report of pulling and moving things at work,
as well as moving things at home for a yard sale. (Ex. G.)
The employee testified she had been having symptoms long
before the yard sale mentioned to Dr. Ziebarth. (T. 83-84.)
Dr. Ziebarth ordered an MRI, which showed mild tendinosis of
the supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendons, mild tendinosis
of the distal subscapular tendon, mild degenerative arthritis
of the AC joint, and mild tendinosis of the intraarticular
portion of the long head of the bicep tendon in the GH joint.
(Ex. D.)
Dr.
Ziebarth issued light duty restrictions. After one week of
light duty work, the employer was no longer able to
accommodate her restrictions. She was taken off work and told
to apply for short-term disability benefits.
Dr...
