Webb v. Bell Printing & Design, 112020 IDWC, IC 2017-027843

• Case Date: November 20, 2020
• Court: Idaho

RACHEL WEBB, Claimant, v. BELL PRINTING & DESIGN, Employer, and CINCINNATI CASUALTY CO., Surety, Defendants. No. IC 2017-027843 Idaho Workers Compensation Before the Industrial Commission of the State of Idaho November 20, 2020          FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDATION           Thomas P. Baskin, Chairman.          INTRODUCTION          Referee Michael Powers conducted a hearing in the above-entitled matter in Idaho Falls on January 9, 2019. Claimant, Rachel Webb, was present in person and represented by James Arnold of Idaho Falls. Defendant Employer, Bell Printing & Design (Bell) and Defendant Surety, Cincinnati Casualty Co., were represented by Susan Veltman of Boise. The parties presented oral and documentary evidence. Post-hearing depositions were taken; however, before the matter was briefed by the parties Referee Powers retired.          On July 12, 2019, the Idaho Supreme Court determined that a claimant is entitled to findings and a recommendation from the referee who presided at hearing. Ayala v. Robert J. Meyers Farms, Inc., 165 Idaho 355, 357–58, 445 P.3d 164, 166–67 (2019).          Pursuant to Idaho Code § 72-506, the Idaho Industrial Commission assigned the above-entitled matter to Referee Alan Taylor, who conducted a telephonic conference with the parties during which Claimant requested a hearing before the newly assigned referee.          On November 7, 2019, Referee Taylor conducted a hearing in Idaho Falls. Mr. Arnold represented Claimant. Ms. Veltman represented Defendants Employer and Surety. The parties presented additional oral and documentary evidence. Additional post-hearing depositions were taken, and briefs were later submitted. The matter came under advisement on September 1, 2020.          ISSUES          The issues to be decided are:          1. Whether Claimant suffers from complex regional pain syndrome due to her industrial accident, and if so, the extent thereof;          2. Whether Claimant is entitled to additional medical care, and if so, the extent thereof; and          3. Whether Claimant is entitled to additional temporary disability benefits.          CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES          All parties acknowledge Claimant suffered an industrial accident on September 7, 2017, when she fell down the stairs at Employer’s workplace. Defendants accepted the claim and paid for medical treatment and temporary disability benefits until approximately June 13, 2018. Claimant asserts that due to her industrial accident she suffers from complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) which commenced with her right knee and subsequently spread to her other extremities, requires further medical treatment, and is entitled to additional temporary disability benefits. Defendants assert that Claimant does not suffer CRPS and requires no further medical treatment. In the alternative, Defendants allege that if Claimant has CRPS, it is not related to her industrial accident, or if related, it has not spread to her other extremities and treatment thereof has not been reasonable and necessary.          EVIDENCE CONSIDERED          The record in this matter consists of the following:

1. The Industrial Commission legal file.

2. The testimony of Claimant, Rachel Webb, and Chris Wagener, taken at the January 9, 2019 hearing.

3. Claimant’s Exhibits A-Q admitted at the January 9, 2019 hearing.

4. Defendants’ Exhibits 1-5, 7, 10, and 12-13, admitted at the January 9, 2019 hearing.

5. The deposition testimony of Daniel P.W. Smith, D.O, taken by Claimant on November 30, 2018.

6. The post-hearing deposition testimony of Richard A. Wathne, M.D., taken by Claimant on February 14, 2019.

7. The post-hearing deposition testimony of Brian D. Tallerico, D.O., taken by Defendants on February 22, 2019.

8. The testimony of Claimant, Rachel Webb, taken at the November 7, 2019 hearing.

9. Claimant’s Exhibits R-U admitted at the November 7, 2019 hearing.

10. Defendants’ Exhibits 14-15, admitted at the November 7, 2019 hearing.

11. The post-deposition testimony of Daniel P.W. Smith, D.O, taken by Claimant on February 21, 2020.

12. The post-hearing deposition testimony of Dennis Chong, M.D., taken by Defendants on Aril 16, 2020.

         Pursuant to Defendants’ request, judicial notice is taken of the AMA, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth and Sixth Editions.          Defendants objected to portions of Dr. Smith’s testimony during his February 21, 2020 post-hearing deposition pursuant to JRP 10(E)(4) as based on evidence developed post-hearing and maintained their objection in their Responsive Brief. Said objections are sustained and Defendants’ request to strike Dr. Smith’s testimony in response to all such questions is granted.          All other outstanding objections are overruled and motions to strike are denied.          After having considered the above evidence and the arguments of the parties, the Referee submits the following findings of fact and conclusions of law for review by the Commission.          FINDINGS OF FACT          1. Background. Claimant was born in 1988. She was approximately 31 years old and resided in Idaho Falls at the time of hearing. She is right handed, five foot two inches tall, and at all relevant times weighed approximately 110 pounds.          2. Claimant was born in Florida and graduated from high school in 2006. She developed a swimming injury at the age of 17 in which her right patella dislocated to the side of her knee. In approximately 2007, she underwent arthroscopic right knee surgery to “tighten up the tendons and ligaments to keep my patella in place.” January Transcript, p. 32, ll. 20-21. Approximately yearly thereafter Claimant had recurring right knee pain which prompted her to wear a right knee brace from time to time.          3. Claimant received an associate degree from a community college and worked as an administrative assistant at a law office. She also worked in her parents’ sports photography business.          4. In approximately 2014, Claimant moved to the Idaho Falls area and began working for Bell assisting as a photographer with school photo shoots.          5. On January 15, 2017, Claimant injured her right knee while skiing. On January 16, 2017, she presented to Bryant Hansen, PA-C, who recorded: “PT presents c/o right knee swelling pain after falling while skiing yesterday. PT was able to ski after the injury but states she could not walk on it last night due to pain and stiffness. Denies any clicking, catching, weakness or numbness. .... mild effusion present …. Range of motion: limited ROM secondary to pain, flexion.” Exhibit A, pp. 25-26. He prescribed a knee brace and several weeks of rest. Claimant continued working. She had intermittent right knee symptoms thereafter. At follow-up on February 13, 2017, she reported “pain is much better than it was, continues to have pain only when she is on her feet for a long period of time. Admits to feeling a small clicking with knee flexion on the medial side. Denies any swelling.” Exhibit A, p. 30. Claimant continued to experience intermittent right knee pain with prolonged standing or driving.          6. Industrial accident. On September 7, 2017, Claimant tripped and fell forward while descending a flight of stairs as she was leaving work for the day. She struck her right knee on a metal stair and then again on the concrete landing at the base of the stairwell. She noted immediate right knee pain. Her coworkers heard her fall and came to assist her. She worked for several more days after her fall, although with difficulty due to persisting right knee pain.          7. Medical treatment. On September 17, 2017, Claimant presented to PA-C Hansen who recorded: “c/o right knee pain and swelling after taking a fall down the stairs yesterday. Very painful over the knee cap and feels some clicking and popping with ambulation. ... Right knee … no swelling or redness. …. [L]imited ROM secondary to pain, flexion. Crepitus: mild. Palpation: tenderness on medial collateral ligament.” Exhibit A, pp. 50-51. He directed her to wear her knee brace and ordered a right knee MRI. The MRI performed September 19, 2017, documented: “There is subcortical edema along the anteromedial aspect of the medial femoral condyle. No discrete cartilage defect is identified. ... no joint effusions. Impression: 1. contusion of the anteromedial aspect of the medial femoral condyle. ” Exhibit A, p. 55.          8. On...