DIANE McKEEN (Appellee)
v.
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION (Appellant)
and
ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY (Insurer)
Decision No. 19-23
No. A.D. 18-0042
Maine Workers Compensation Decisions
State of Maine Workers’ Compensation Board
July 11, 2019
Argued: April 10, 2019
Attorney for Appellant: Robert W. Bower, Jr., Esq. NORMAN,
HANSON & DeTROY
Attorneys for Appellee: Benjamin I. Grant, Esq. KAPLAN &
GRANT
PANEL
MEMBERS: Administrative Law Judges Goodnough, Elwin, and
Jerome
Goodnough, Administrative Law Judge.
[¶1]
HealthSouth Corporation appeals from a decision of a
Workers’ Compensation Board Administrative Law Judge
(Stovall, ALJ) granting Diane
McKeen’s Petitions for Award and for Payment of Medical
and Related Services. HealthSouth contends that the
ALJ’s finding that Ms. McKeen’s heart attack
resulted from work-related stress is not supported by
competent evidence. We affirm the decision.
I.
BACKGROUND
[¶2]
Diane McKeen, a licensed practical nurse, began working for
HealthSouth in 2004. In 2014, she was employed on a per diem
basis, working three to four days per week at the New England
Rehabilitation Hospital. Her duties included caring for the
needs of a designated group of residents, passing out
medications, and supervising CNAs.
[¶3]
On April 11, 2014, Ms. McKeen was having a busy, somewhat
stressful day at work. She had to track down patients who
were not in their rooms to test their blood sugars before
mealtime. When she entered the room of a patient who had
recently undergone a carotid endarterectomy, she noticed he
was having neurological problems that required immediate
attention. She went to find a nurse qualified to further
evaluate the situation.
[¶4]
When she returned with the nurse, Ms. McKeen noticed a sense
of heaviness across her shoulders, which soon spread to her
arms and chest. This sensation worsened quickly, and she
excused herself from the room. After an evaluation by New
England Rehabilitation staff, she was transported to Maine
Medical Center, where she remained for about a week. She was
diagnosed as suffering from a myocardial infarction (MI) and
underwent cardiac catheterization and stent placement.
[¶5]
Ms. McKeen thereafter filed her Petitions with the board. The
record contains conflicting expert opinions as to what caused
Ms. McKeen’s MI. Dr. Teufel conducted an independent
medical examination pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 312
(Supp. 2018). He issued a report pursuant to section 312 and
was subsequently deposed. Although conceding that the precise
cause of the MI was “unknowable,” he ultimately
opined that it most likely occurred due to a plaque rupture.
Noting an absence...