THOMAS A. MICHLITSCH, Employee,
v.
MICHLITSCH BUILDERS, INC., and STATE FUND MUT. INS. CO., Employer-Insurer/Appellants, and MINNESOTA EYE CONSULTANTS, P.A., Intervenor.
No. WC06-116
Minnesota Workers Compensation
Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals
August 10, 2006
HEADNOTES
CAUSATION
- INTERVENING CAUSE; MEDICAL TREATMENT & EXPENSE -
SURGERY. Where the employee's work-related eye
condition clearly rendered the employee more vulnerable to
reinjury by a blunt blow, and where the episode at home that
triggered the employee's need for surgery - - walking
into a door jamb in the dark - - was not a consequence of
"unreasonable, negligent, dangerous, or abnormal
activity on the part of the employee," the compensation
judge's conclusion that the employee's need for
surgery was "a natural consequence flowing from the
primary injury" and not the product of a superseding,
intervening cause was not clearly erroneous and unsupported
by substantial evidence, although the employee's
permanently weakened condition did not cause the injuring
incident at home.
Affirmed.
John
R. Malone, Malone & Atchison, Edina, MN, for the
Respondent.
Andrew
W. Lynn, Lynn, Scharfenberg & Assoc., Minneapolis, MN,
for the Appellants.
Determined
by: Pederson, J., Wilson, J., and Stofferahn, J.
Compensation
Judge:Catherine A. Dallner
OPINION
WILLIAM R. PEDERSON, Judge
The
employer and insurer appeal from the compensation judge's
finding that the employee's medical care and treatment,
in the nature of an artificial iris/intraocular lens implant,
was a natural consequence of the employee's 1991
work-related injury and from the judge's related finding
that a subsequent non-work-related incident did not
constitute a superseding, intervening cause of the need for
that treatment. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On May
22, 1991, Thomas Michlitsch [the employee] sustained an
injury to his left eye while working for Michlitsch Builders,
Inc. [the employer]. He was treated at Minneapolis
Medical Eye Clinic and diagnosed with traumatic hyphema,
traumatic cataract, traumatic iritis, and a marked angle
recession of the left eye. The employee subsequently
underwent cataract surgery and placement of an intraocular
lens. An additional surgery was performed in 1993 in an
attempt to address the employee's glare symptoms, but
that procedure was only partially successful. Thereafter
the employee continued to report problems with light-related
visual disturbances, including photophobia and glare.
On
March 7, 2005, the employee returned to Minneapolis Medical
Eye Clinic with a history of changes in his vision, increased
glare sensitivity, and frequent headaches. Three weeks
later, at a visit on March 28, 2005, the employee reported
having experienced distorted and fuzzy vision in his left eye
on awakening that morning. During the night, he had
gotten up to use the bathroom and had walked into a door,
striking the left side of his head. He was referred to
Dr. Daniel Hardten, who diagnosed a dislocated implant and
recommended a subtotal vitrectomy and intraocular lens
exchange, for placement of an artificial iris. In a May
4, 2005, letter to the employer's insurer, State Fund...
