Kucharczyk v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., 120806 MIWC, 2007-273

Case DateDecember 08, 2006
CourtMichigan
KEITH A. KUCHARCZYK xxx Plaintiff
v.
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, SELF-INSURED Defendant
No. 2007-273
Michigan Workers Compensation
State of Michigan Department of Labor & Economic Growth Workers’ Compensation Agency Board of Magistrates
December 8, 2006
         HEARING DATE(S): November 15, 2005           Robert S. Strager (P30896) for plaintiff.           David J. Berge (P40045) for defendant.           OPINION           MURRAY A. GORCHOW, MAGISTRATE (220G) JUDGE          STATEMENT OF CLAIM:          Plaintiff alleged injury knees and legs at work on 5/30/95, claiming that he fell off a machine; on 9/3/04 he slipped on a machine; and 9/24/04 while he worked as a machine operator. At trial, plaintiff, without objection, amended the alleged 9/24/04 date of injury to 1/14/05.          STIPULATIONS:          For all three alleged dates of injury, the parties stipulated that the employer and the employee were subject to the Act; that defendant carried the risk as a self-insured employer; that the employee was in the employ of the employer at the time of the alleged personal injury; that the employer had timely notice of the alleged personal injury; and that a timely claim for compensation was made.          The Average Weekly Wage, excluding fringe benefits, was stipulated for 5/30/95 as $926.88; for 9/3/04 as $1,023.28; and for 1/14/05 as $899.44. The parties stipulated for all dates that there were fringe benefits, which always continued. There was no stipulation as to the value of the fringe benefits. If the value of the fringes becomes relevant in the future, the parties may return to the Board of Magistrates for a hearing on that issue if necessary.          The parties left to proofs the plaintiff’s tax filing status, dependents if any, and any entitlement to coordination of benefits. There was no claim for dual employment.          Defendant denied that any personal injury arose out of and in the course of employment; and that any disability was due to the alleged personnel injuries.          WITNESS TESTIFYING PERSONALLY:          Plaintiff          Keith A. Kucharczyk          Defendants          Thomas C. Stroud          WITNESS TESTIFYING BY DEPOSITION:          Plaintiff          Kevin J. Sprague, M.D. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit #1)          Defendants          Shrirang M. Lele, M.D. (Defendant’s Exhibit A)          Both depositions were admitted into evidence subject to the objections contained therein, including defendant’s objection at the time of Dr. Sprague’s deposition claiming that not all of the doctor’s records were there at the time of the deposition.          EXHIBITS OTHER THAN DEPOSITIONS:          Plaintiff          None          Defendant          Defendant’s Plant Medical Records (4 pp) (Def. Exh. B)--admitted without objection.          SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S LAY TESTIMONY          Keith A. Kucharczyk          Plaintiff, Keith A. Kucharczyk, was 37 years old at the time of trial having been born xxx. He is single. His tax filing status for the claimed dates of injury of 9/3/04 and 1/14/05 is single head of household. He claims two dependent children, Lauren (dob xxx) and Seth (dob xxx). Both children were living with him on the date of these two alleged injuries. He shares fifty percent legal custody of the children and claims them both on his tax return as dependents. I find both children to be dependents of plaintiff for those two dates of injury. Regarding the alleged injury date of 5/30/95, plaintiff was a singled taxpayer claiming no dependents, having no children at that time.          Plaintiff graduated from high school in 1986 and has had approximately two years of college from 1987 until 1988 at Heidelberg College. From 1988 to 1993 he worked as a sales representative for Official Sports Center, a sporting goods supplier. He called on elementary and high schools as well as colleges. He left that employment because he was not making sufficient salary. He left to go to work for defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation in order to obtain better pay and benefits. He began work for defendant on 9/27/93 and worked for defendant until 1/14/05. On beginning his employment with defendant, plaintiff had a pre-employment physical and there were no restrictions imposed on his work activities. During his first seven to eight months, he was placed on the motor line at the Trenton Engine Plant. He was then transferred to a machine putting motor mounts on the machine to bend the parts. He then placed them on a skid. He also worked as a hoist man taking motors off the mount using a hydraulic hook. While the motor was on the hook he would walk it along to a rack and then swing it using his body weight and “jimmy” it into the rack carefully. These motors were completed motors coming off the line. Care was necessary to avoid damaging the oil pan on the motors which were very heavy weighing as much as 1000 pounds. He was on his feet 95% of the day with the remaining 5% being break time. He did his work standing on a cement floor. There was a little bending, but most of the work was done with his back and legs. There was also a little bit of squatting, but mostly walking and “fighting” with the motors to position them at the rack. He did this for the first 7 to 8 months of his employment.          He then worked at the machine division where there were machines on a metal platform. This work required a lot of going up and down steps, and squatting and working on his knees in small confined spaces. He would lift manifolds weighing ten to fifteen pounds and work using his hands and upper body and did squatting. He would change tools weighing fifty pounds. He described this work as a physically demanding job. He described it as being one of the hardest jobs at the plant. He worked on a metal platform that was approximately 1-1/2” thick and consisted of perforated steel. The platform was 4’ by 2-3’ by 1-1/2”. He said that 90% of the machines were on these platforms and were two to three steps up to the platform to do the work. Sometimes he would have to get up and down from the platform every three minutes. Sometimes he would stay on the platform. He would also be required to bend and squat to get into a part box that was sitting on a skid on the floor; although sometimes it was on a stand. Sometimes squatting into the box was done all day long and sometimes not that frequently. He worked at this job 10 hours to 12 hours per day and 6 to 7 days per week.          While performing this work he described that there was a lot of slipping and sliding on coolant that was on the floor and especially on the rubberized mat, which, in his words, was “very slick with coolant”. He sometimes put cardboard on the floor to avoid slipping on the coolant. The coolant was enough of a problem that he would change booths almost every day because they got so wet with the coolant. He would also have to climb on and off of these machines which he described as being “mammoth” in size. While the platforms he worked on were approximately 3’ high, he would also have to climb up onto the machines six to eight to ten times per day while carrying tools and then stand on the machine doing his work. Sometimes he would have to get on his knees to get inside of the area to work on the machine. For example: to remove the cutter. He said that he did that two to three times per day and more frequently up to eight to ten times per day if there was breakage. He repeated that his work was mostly standing but also twisting and turning most of the day with a lot of bending and squatting. There was no sitting on the job at all. He would also have to use cross-overs to get over the flumes. He said that he would walk up 20 steps up and 20 steps down from the cross-over and this would occur sometimes 6 times per day sometimes as many as 20 times per day. The only time he would not be walking over the cross-overs was during the time he worked as a job setter in 1995 until approximately 1998 or 1999. His work as a job setter would require kneeling and squatting during breakdowns.          After being a job setter, he did camshaft work beginning in 1998 or 1999. This job involved climbing over pipes and cross-overs to do the work. He would have to bend to change caps and kneel to change tooling. He opened the machine physically pulling it open to change the tooling, and did a lot of walking and bending to lift camshafts. He used his legs and knees and low back on the camshaft line. If the cams got jammed, he would have to climb...

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