Morehead, 121718 ARWC, G803801

• Case Date: December 17, 2018
• Court: Kansas

ALBERT MOREHEAD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CENTRAL MOLONEY, INC., SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES,TPA RESPONDENT No. G803801 Arkansas Workers Compensation Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission December 17, 2018           (4/21/2016)          Hearing before Chief Administrative Law Judge Andrew L. Blood on October 19, 2018, at Pine Bluff, Jefferson County, Arkansas.           Claimant represented by The Honorable Neal L. Hart, Attorney-at-Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.           Respondent represented by The Honorable Karen H. McKinney, Attorney-at-Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.           ANDREW L. BLOOD, Chief Administrative Law Judge.          STATEMENT OF THE CASE          A hearing was conducted on October 19, 2018, to determine the claimant’s entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits. On September 11, 2018, a prehearing conference was conducted in this claim, from which a Prehearing Order of the same date was filed. The Prehearing Order reflects stipulations entered by the parties, the issues to be addressed during the course of the hearing, and the contentions of the parties relative to the afore. The Prehearing Order is herein designated a part of the record as “Commission Exhibit #1.”          The testimony of Albert Morehead, Michelle Gurley, and George Mosley, coupled with medical reports and other documentary evidence comprise the record in this claim.          DISCUSSION          Albert Morehead, the claimant, with a date of birth of November 25, 1952, is a high school graduate with two (2) years of post-secondary education, commenced his employment with respondent on April 4, 1994. The claimant was last employed by respondent on March 20, 2018.          The claimant testified that he was hired by respondent as a coil processor/fork lift driver. The claimant explained the job duties of a coil processor at respondent:

Well, what we do is mainly after the coils are wind they come around to us and what we do is we mold the coils and we send them on down the line to be pressed and then after that, you know, the coils go -- after they pressed they go in the oven for, you know, whether they are 4-hour coils, 8-hour coils, or 24-hour coils. The 24-hour coils go into a different oven, a driving oven and the eight and four hour -- the eight hours and 24 hours go in the driving oven and the 4-hour coils go in -- stay on the line and go in the 4-hour oven. Some call it a tunnel oven. (Tr. pp.10-11)

         The respondent manufactures transformers. The claimant continued, regarding the molds:

The molds are -- are objects that -- that goes inside -- inside the coils, which is not considered a transformer. We call them a coil because they haven’t got in the tank yet, but the molds go inside of the coils to be pressed, and it’s two sections. You know, we have one top section go in, and we have a bottom section go in to fulfill the window in the coil. (Tr. p.11)

         The claimant testified that in 2016 he was working at respondent as a coil processor. The claimant’s testimony reflects that on April 21, 2016, while discharging employment duties he suffered an injury. The claimant explained the mechanics of the injury:

The coils were put on the line. I -- when the coils came down, it was a power coil, which has a larger mold, 11 -- this particular coil needed an 11.5 mold in it. I went to get the mold from the -- out of the rack, and I had to step up on a pallet, and the pallet had -- what they have? -- cardboard over the pallets and pallets -- cardboard was larger than the pallet. When I stepped up on the -- on the pallet, I went and got the mold -- I reached over and got the mold out of -- out of the rack, and when I come back, you know, to go back down the line to put the mold inside the coil, I stepped on the pallet -- and the cardboard and I popped my [right] knee. Instead of me dropping the mold, I was right there by the -- the conveyor belt so I just held the mold and I put it up on top of the conveyor belt and they rolled -- AC, that’s who it was -- AC rolled the -- backed the conveyor belt up back down to the coil that I was getting ready to mold. (Tr. p.12)

         Regarding the symptoms that he experienced as a result of the above, the claimant’s testimony reflects:

My right knee popped, and what I did was, like I say, I didn’t -- I didn’t, you know, really know that it was -- I was really hurt, so when I put the mold up there and the mold rolled back -- we rolled it back to the coil, I continued -- I went on mold the coil up and everything, and probably about -- later on, maybe, 10, 15 minutes I was still having pain in my knee, I’m saying. That’s when I knew that I really had hurt my knee. (Tr.p.13)

          The claimant denied having previously felt a similar sensation in his right knee.          The testimony of the claimant reflects the he reported the injury to his supervisor, Bryant Stewart:

I told him what -- about what had happened concerning me getting the mold out of the rack and stepping off the pallet I told him the whole -- the whole story. (Tr.p.14)

         The claimant testified that he was directed by his supervisor to go to the nurse, which he did. The described the treatment of his right knee complaint that he received by the nurse:

She put -- she put some Biofreeze is what they call it. It’s in a little patch. She put some Biofreeze on it. She looked at it and examined it and she put some Biofreeze on it and a -- well, it wasn’t a wrap. It was a slide on -- a slide on brace, like, you know, to hold on my knee. (Tr. pp.14-15)

         The claimant returned to full duty work, noting that there is no light duty work at respondent. The claimant added that while he continued to work, although experiencing pain in the right knee, it was almost the end of the workday.          The testimony of the claimant reflects that came to work the following day:

Right. I was hopping, but I continued to -- you know, I would go in to the nurse, and she would give me some of that Biofreeze, and I would put that on my knee, and I would back to work. (Tr. pp.15-16)

         The claimant explained some of the difficulties that he was having with the right knee as he continued to work:

Well, one of the problems was that I stayed in pain, but it got to a point where it was a little embarrassing me hopping around up in there for one thing, you know what I’m saying? But I continued to do my job, you know, because, you know, there wasn’t nobody to do the job for me, you know, other than the ones that was working with me, I’m saying, so I just did as less as I could, but I continued to do my job. (Tr. p.16)

         The claimant denied ever having to go the doctor specifically for his right knee prior to April 21, 2016.          The claimant acknowledged completing the From N on May 19, 2016, and receiving some additional medical care relative to the right knee around that time.          The claimant concedes that he probably saw the nurse on May 19, 2016:

I believe I did. I saw the nurse probably at least three, four times a month. You know, I would go in there, and she would give me something to put on it, and then eventually she changed. She gave me a different type of wrap, you know, slide on brace, whatever you call it, to go on it, but I would be in her office pretty regular concerning -- you know, that’s all she had for me was the Biofreeze, and it did -- it helped out, but I was taking Aleve every day, you know? (Tr.p.17)

         The claimant denies that he was provided anything other then the Biofreeze by the nurse.          The claimant acknowledged seeing the respondent-designated, Dr. Gubrij on May 19, 2016, pursuant to the direction of respondent:

That doctor -- that was, like, in White Hall. I had got bit by a spider on the job, and that’s why I ended up in his office, and while I was in his office, he checked -- he checked me out and everything, and he really didn’t -- couldn’t tell me whether it was a spider bite or what, but he checked it out and everything, and then I mentioned to him, because I was still in pain, about my knee, but he didn’t do anything. You know, he didn’t examine it or anything like that, but I did mention to him about -- about my knee because he was a doctor, you know? (Tr. pp.17-18)

         The claimant maintains that while the doctor “looked at” his knee, he did not examine it during the May 19, 2016, visit.

He looked at my knee if that’s what he calls examine it. He looked at it, but he didn’t -- he

...