STEVAN V PERICH Applicant
v.
DEMATIC CORP Employer
SENTRY INSURANCE A MUTUAL CO Insurer
Claim No. 2013-029060
Wisconsin Workers Compensation
State of Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission
March 1, 2021
Worker’s
Compensation Decision1
Michael H. Gillick, Chairperson.
Interlocutory
Order The commission affirms in part and reverses in part the
decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) issued in this
matter on April 16, 2020. Within 30 days from this date,
Dematic Corporation and Sentry Insurance a Mutual Company
(respondents) shall pay to the applicant permanent partial
disability compensation in the amount of Twenty-Three
Thousand Three Hundred Forty-Three dollars and Seventy cents
($23,343.70); and to applicant's attorney, Emily D.
Davey, fees in the amount of Five Thousand Nine Hundred Nine
dollars ($5,909.00), and costs in the amount of Two Hundred
Ninety-Two dollars and Thirty cents ($292.30).
Respondents
shall additionally pay all reasonable and necessary medical
expenses the applicant incurred through March 3, 2015. The
applicant's WKC-3 does not separate medical expenses
incurred through that date from medical expenses incurred
after that date. Accordingly, this decision shall be
interlocutory with respect to the amount of medical expenses
incurred through that date, as well as with respect to the
reasonableness and necessity of the treatment charges.
Jurisdiction
is reserved solely with respect to the issue of medical
expenses claimed through March 3, 2015. If the parties are
unable to reach agreement upon this issue, then opportunity
for further hearing solely with respect to that issue shall
be given. In all other respects the commission's decision
is final.
By the
Commission:
David
B. Falstad, Commissioner, Georgia E. Maxwell, Commissioner.
Procedural
Posture
On
December 5, 2016, the applicant filed a hearing application
claiming compensation due for injuries sustained on October
25, 2013, while performing services in the employment of
Dematic Corporation. Respondents ultimately conceded the
occurrence of a work-related injury, but disputed the nature
and extent of disability, and the extent of reasonably
required medical treatment. An ALJ of the Department of
Administration, Division of Hearings and Appeals, Office of
Worker's Compensation Hearings held a hearing in the
matter on February 13, 2020. On April 16, 2020, the ALJ
issued a decision dismissing the applicant's claim for
disability compensation beyond that already conceded and
paid. The ALJ left her decision interlocutory with respect to
the amount of medical expense incurred through September 30,
2014. The applicant timely filed a petition for commission
review alleging error in the ALJ's decision.
The
commission has reviewed the evidentiary record submitted at
hearing. In conjunction with that review, it has considered
the petition and the positions of the parties set forth in
their briefs to the commission. Based upon its review and
analysis, the commission makes the following:
Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law
1. The
applicant, whose birthdate is October, 1959, served in the
Air Force after high school and received an associate degree
in electrical technology in 1984. He went to work as a
computer technician at Delco Electronics and was pursuing a
bachelor's degree in computer science when he was
involved in a serious MVA that occurred in 1991. In that
accident he struck the windshield and sustained back and neck
injuries, which resulted in residual right upper back
symptoms. He also sustained post-traumatic stress syndrome.
He also began to experience difficulty performing his regular
computer technician work, so he bumped down to an assembly
position. Then he quit working at Delco because the assembly
job involved sudden machinery noises that startled him.
Subsequently, he worked at a maintenance job for several
months, and as a property manager for two duplexes that he
owned. He had no other employment until 2001.
2.
After the MVA, the applicant also experienced difficulties
with memory and with maintaining focus on the task at hand.
He used lists to write things down and keep track of what he
needed to do.2 He began working with the Department of
Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR), and they helped him get back
to school at UW-Milwaukee, where he earned a bachelor's
degree in computer science in 2001. Between 2001 and 2011 he
worked as a software engineer for different employers, and in
November of 2011, he went to work for the employer as a
software engineer. This job involved designing, installing,
testing, and maintaining automated conveyor systems. He did
very well at this job and considered it to be his "dream
job."
3. On
October 25, 2013, the applicant was in New Jersey working on
a project for the employer. It was his last scheduled day
before the project was to be completed. That morning, as he
was getting out of the shower/tub in the hotel where he was
staying, he slipped and fell. He hit the back of his head
against the tiled shower wall and briefly lost consciousness.
When he awoke, he managed to reach the telephone and call for
help. He was taken to a hospital in New Jersey where he
complained of a headache. A CT scan of his head was ordered,
and it had normal results. The applicant was kept overnight
at the hospital and left the following day. He left earlier
than the physicians caring for him wanted him to leave. On
his way back to Wisconsin, he had difficulty finding his
boarding gate during a layover at the Detroit airport. An
airline employee helped him find his gate. He also took a
wrong turn while driving home from the airport, and he ended
up at a mall before turning around and reaching his home. He
did not return to work right away, and began receiving
temporary total disability compensation. He continued to
experience headaches, sensitivity to light, and upper back
symptoms.
4. The
applicant first attempted to go back to work in February of
2014, and the employer gave him a relatively easy assignment.
Despite the ease of the assignment...
