Ny v. E.A. Sween Co., 103112 MNWC, WC12-5390

Case DateOctober 31, 2012
CourtMinnesota
SINENG NY, Employee/Appellant,
v.
E.A. SWEEN CO. and SENTRY INS. GROUP, Employer-Insurer,
and
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MINN., CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS, LTD., MEDICAL ADVANCED PAIN SPECIALISTS, and PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INS. CO., Intervenors.
No. WC12-5390
Minnesota Workers Compensation
Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals
October 31, 2012
         HEADNOTES:          CAUSATION - MEDICAL TREATMENT; CAUSATION - SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. The issue in superseding, intervening cause cases is not merely whether the intervening injury or condition is itself a substantial contributing cause of the employee’s subsequent disability but whether that intervening injury or condition has broken the causal connection between the employee’s work injury and that disability. In this case, substantial evidence, including expert medical opinion, supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s work injury was not a substantial contributing cause of the employee’s claimed disability or need for medical treatment after the motor vehicle accident.          CAUSATION - INTERVENING CAUSE. Where substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the employee’s work injury was merely a temporary aggravation of a preexisting condition, and where the employee was involved a subsequent motor vehicle accident that resulted in a dramatic increase in the employee’s symptoms, along with additional complaints and objective findings, and additional need for treatment not recommended before the motor vehicle accident, substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s finding that the motor vehicle accident was a superseding, intervening cause.          Affirmed.           Jeffrey D. Thill and Christine M. Wojdyla, Thill Law Firm, St. Louis Park, MN, for the Appellant.           Deborah K. Sundquist and Radd Kulseth, Aafedt, Forde, Gray, Monson, & Hager, Minneapolis, MN, for the Respondents.           Determined by: Hall, J., Johnson, J., and Milun, C.J.           Compensation Judge: Jane Gordon Ertl           OPINION           GARY M. HALL, Judge          The employee appeals from the compensation judge’s Findings and Order, served and filed January 12, 2012. Because substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s conclusions, we affirm.          BACKGROUND          The employee, Ms. Sineng Ny, came to the United States from Cambodia in 2006. She began working at the employer herein, E.A. Sween Company, in April 2008. The employee needed an interpreter at the hearing in the present matter. There were interpreters present at a number of the employee’s various medical appointments as well.          The employer operated Deli Express, a business that prepares food for packaging and sale. The employee originally worked on the day shift. In an unappealed finding, the compensation judge confirmed that the employee had no problems doing her job on the day shift.          The employee presented to Fairview Oxboro Bloomington Urgent Care on September 27, 2009, with complaints of pain in the bilateral low back region, with radiation into the right leg. She did not recall any injury, and her pain was exacerbated by bending or changing position. She denied any previous history of low back problems. On examination, the employee had a positive straight leg raise test. She was assessed with myofascial low back strain.          The employee began working evening shifts at the employer on October 6, 2009. The employee testified that her work on the evening shift required more lifting and faster movements. However, the employee continued to work five days per week, eight hours per day, and she did not work on weekends.          The employee sustained a work-related injury to her low back on May 15, 2010, while in the course of her work for the employer herein, E.A. Sween Company. The employee testified at the hearing that she noticed low back pain while pulling a cart. According to the First Report of Injury, the employee first notified the employer of the injury on June 15, 2010, and she reported low back pain “while pulling meat supply cart.” The employer and insurer acknowledged liability for the May 15, 2010, injury and commenced payment of benefits.          The employee’s first treatment after the work injury took place on May 27, 2010, when she presented to Allina Medical Clinic Shakopee for evaluation of back pain and to establish care. The employee was complaining of “constant low back pain for over a year.” She stated that her pain was worse just before her period and when she bent over. The only reported injury history was a “motorcycle accident” she was involved in as a child. Dr. Nancy O’Connor noted a history of back pain for more than a year. The pain was worse if the employee lifted something heavy or did any bending. The employee wondered if her symptoms related to an epidural while giving birth. On examination, straight leg raise test was negative. The employee was noted to have a tender right “SI” and mid lower lumbar. The employee was diagnosed with lumbar pain radiating down the right leg and referred to physical therapy.          The employee had an initial physical therapy evaluation at St. Francis Regional Medical Center on June 1, 2010. The employee was complaining of low back pain that started a year ago and had gradually gotten worse, but “the last few weekends it seems to have gotten even worse.” The employee also said it was worse with lifting 10-pound sandwich plates. The pain was located on the low right side and reportedly radiated “right LE to hip.”          The employee had another physical therapy session on June 3, 2010. She reported less low back pain, but she had some pain into the right buttock and tingling into the lower extremity. She rated her pain at 3/10, but she “did report no pain post appointment.” On June 8, 2010, the employee told the physical therapist that she felt better. Her pain that day was only in the middle of the spine, with some pain in the right shoulder.          The employee presented for additional physical therapy on June 10, 2010. She reported having to leave work the day before. She said that she feels well after her appointments and then lifts and bends at work causing more pain. She wanted a note saying that she should lift less. She also noted that she might be pregnant.1 She reported no pain post-treatment.          On June 10, 2010, the employee also returned to see Dr. O’Connor. The intake notes stated that the employee wanted a work note to adjust her restrictions. She wanted to do light duty/lifting. The employee said that she had pain in her back after therapy. Dr. O’Connor noted that the employee’s pain was sometimes worse after physical therapy, but therapy “does seem to be helping.” After therapy, the employee said she would feel better, but then her pain would return with work. She was wondering about less lifting for some time to see if she could improve her strength and mechanics to be able to return to her usual work. Dr. O’Connor issued restrictions of not lifting more than 10 pounds along with avoiding movements such as repetitive bending or bending and lifting. The restrictions were to remain in force until July 10, 2010. The employee was assessed with lumbar back pain that was improving with therapy.          LeAnn White, a human resources specialist with the employer, testified that the employee missed about five days of work beginning June 11, 2010. After that, she continued working full time, with restrictions, until July 19, 2010.          Dr. O’Connor saw the employee on June 17, 2010 to fill out an FMLA form and short-term disability form. Dr. O’Connor indicated that the employee would not be incapacitated for a single continuous period of time. However, she might have one to three periodic flare ups per month. The nature of the injury was described as a lumbar strain due to the employee’s work. The injury date was listed as May 15, 2010.          The employee had her seventh physical therapy visit on June 22, 2010. She reported feeling good after therapy. However, she was returning to work and felt that she needed support for her back. The employee once again reported no pain after her therapy session.          The employee continued working in a full time capacity. She did not seek any additional medical treatment, nor did she return for physical therapy, until July 19, 2010. The employee had the weekend off, as usual, and she did not work on July 17 and 18.          On July 19, the employee went to work at her regular evening start time but left after about half an hour. The employee then presented to Fairview Oxboro Bloomington Urgent...

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