MAXINE C. PIERSON, Employee/Appellant,
v.
MARATECH CORP. and COMMERCIAL UNION INS. CO., Employer-Insurer,
and
MN DEP'T OF ECONOMIC SEC. and BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF MINN., Intervenors.
Minnesota Workers Compensation
Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals
January 6, 1999
HEADNOTES
CAUSATION
- GILLETTE INJURY. Substantial evidence,
including primarily medical expert opinion, supports the
compensation judge's determinations that the employee did
not sustain a work-related Gillette-type injury
culminating on March 28, 1997.
Affirmed.
Determined by: Hefte, J., Wheeler, C.J., and Wilson, J.
Compensation Judge: Catherine A. Dallner
OPINION
RICHARD C. HEFTE, Judge
Maxine
C. Pierson, the employee, appeals from the compensation
judge's findings and order that the employee, while
working for Maratech, the employer, did not sustain a
work-related Gillette1-type personal injury to
her left upper extremity and therefore the employee was not
entitled to temporary total disability, medical and
rehabilitation benefits. The employee also appeals from
the finding that the employee did not conduct a diligent job
search and from the compensation judge's finding of the
employee's average weekly wage. We affirm the
finding that the employee did not sustain a work-related
injury and was not entitled to any workers' compensation
benefits in this matter.2
BACKGROUND
Maxine
Pierson, the employee, alleged that she sustained a
Gillette-type work injury which culminated on
March 28, 1997, in the nature of a left hand and arm
injury. The employee, a college graduate, was 58 years
of age at the time of the hearing herein. Her previous
work history generally included employment as a senior
collection investigator for the county attorney's office
in Hennepin County; work with a law office as a manager
supervising secretarial and paralegals; and work as an
employee for a state of Minnesota collection unit. From
March of 1996 through March of 1997, the employee worked for
the employer in this matter as the sole employee and manager
of its Minneapolis office.
The
employee testified that in December of...
