Lund v. Mercy Medical Center, 011020 IAWC, 5066398

• Case Date: January 10, 2020
• Court: Iowa

NORMA LUND, Claimant v. MERCY MEDICAL CENTER, Employer, and, INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Insurance Carrier, Defendants. No. 5066398 Iowa Workers Compensation Before the Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner January 10, 2020          Head Note Nos. 1100; 1802           ARBITRATION DECISION           JENNIFER S. GERRISH-LAMPEDEPUTY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER          STATEMENT OF THE CASE          Norma Lund, claimant, filed a petition in arbitration seeking workers’ compensation benefits against Mercy Medical Center, employer, and Indemnity Ins. Co. of America, insurer, both as defendants for a disputed work injury date of February 25, 2018.          The case was heard on October 31, 2019, in Des Moines, Iowa. The case was considered fully submitted on November 27, 2019, upon the simultaneous filing of briefs.          The record consists of Joint Exhibits 1-20; Claimant’s Exhibits 1-5; Defendants’ Exhibits A-K, and the live testimony of claimant, Norma Lund, Cindy Sue Jennings, and Chester Calambas.          ISSUES

• Whether claimant sustained an injury on February 25, 2018, which arose out of and in the course of employment;

• Whether claimant is entitled to healing period benefits beginning May 17, 2018; and

• The assessment of costs.

         STIPULATIONS          The parties filed a hearing report at the commencement of the arbitration hearing. On the hearing report, the parties entered into various stipulations. All of those stipulations were accepted and are hereby incorporated into this arbitration decision and no factual or legal issues relative to the parties’ stipulations will be raised or discussed in this decision. The parties are now bound by their stipulations.          The parties agree that at the time of the alleged injuries, claimant was an employee of defendant-employer. They further agree that the issues of permanent partial disability benefits and medical benefits are not ripe for determination but that they will work out those issues based on the decision herein.          At the time of the alleged injury the claimant’s gross earnings were $616.10, she was single and entitled to one exemption. Based on the foregoing, the claimant’s weekly benefit rate is $383.07.          The defendants are entitled to a credit for short term disability and long term disability paid and for medical paid by the defendants’ health insurance or previously by workers’ compensation against any award herein.          The defendants waive all affirmative defenses. While the parties do not agree on the causal connection between the medical bills and the injury, defendants would further stipulate that the fees and prices charged by the providers in the disputed medical expenses were fair and reasonable, that the treatment was reasonable and necessary, that they will not offer any contrary evidence as to the reasonableness of the fees and/or treatment, and although the causal connection of the expenses to the work injury cannot be stipulated, the parties agree that the listed expenses are at least causally connected to the medical condition upon which the claim of injury is based.          FINDINGS OF FACT          Claimant was a 58-year-old woman at the time of hearing. She began work as a sterilization processing technician for defendant-employer on December 19, 2016. As a part of her duties, she would assemble instruments necessary for surgery. This required her to lift items off and onto trays, lift the trays off the carts for sterilization, push the carts into the sterilization room, and pull the carts from the same.          Cindy Jennings was the sterile processing supervisor at all times material hereto and was claimant’s direct supervisor from the time that claimant started working at defendant-employer until claimant ceased working for defendant-employer. Chester Calambas is a co-worker of claimant who shared shifts with her. The aforementioned testified live. Mary Bowlin, a supervisor, and Daniel Bench, a co-worker, testified via deposition. (Exhibits J and K)          All had slightly varying testimony regarding the quantity of work done during a shift and the weight of the trays. Claimant testified that the trays she lifted weighed 30 to 50 pounds and sometimes even 60. Cindy Jennings maintained that no tray weighed more than 25 pounds due to a requirement by the “Joint Commission” although she acknowledged that some trays were 27 to 28 pounds. (Tr. page 81) Mr. Bench elaborated on this. He stated that the vendors have to weigh the pans every time and certify that they are under 25 pounds because that is the legal limit for them to be considered sterile by the Joint Commission. (Ex. K, p. 17) Mr. Bench testified that the pans are weighed and that most weigh less than 20 pounds but that the heaviest are vendor pans and ortho pans. The vendors weigh close to 25 pounds and the medium ortho tray weighs approximately 22 pounds. (Ex. K, pp. 9-10) Chester Calambas, a co-worker, testified that he lifted trays of 30 pounds but never more than 40. (Trans. p. 107) He also testified that all vendor trays that came pre-assembled had their weight printed on a label. The job description provided by defendants did require lifting of up to 50 pounds occasionally and pushing and pulling up to 65 pounds. (JE 1:2) An orthopaedic doctor, Stephen Aviles, M.D., testified that orthopedic surgeons use some of the heaviest equipment in a hospital and ordinarily their trays are 20-25 pounds. (Ex. D, p. 20) Mary Bowlin testified that the heaviest tray to lift would be a medium ortho or a vendor pan or a total hip that would be around 25 pounds. (Ex. J 41, p. 6) According to Ms. Bowlin, no pan would weigh more than 25 pounds. (Ex. J 41, pp. 6-8) Id.          There was also a dispute about how high the trays would be lifted. Mr. Calambas said that you would not have to lift a tray overhead while claimant testified she would do this on a regular basis. Mr. Calambas stated that the heavy ones are placed around waist height or three to four feet high but not over the shoulder. (Tr. p. 106) Ms. Bowlin agreed with this but confirmed that there were times that a worker would have to lift off above shoulder height. (Ex. J 41, p. 19)          However, Ms. Jennings testified that on occasion vendor trays go on the top shelf and that some vendor trays are heavier than a typical tray. (Tr. p. 97)...