Weymiller v. Lockheed Idaho Technologies, 022316 IDWC, IC 2000-019910

• Case Date: February 23, 2016
• Court: Idaho

PENNY WEYMILLER, Claimant, v. LOCKHEED IDAHO TECHNOLOGIES, Employer, and EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU, Surety, Defendants. No. IC 2000-019910 Idaho Workers Compensation Before the Industrial Commission of the state of Idaho February 23, 2016           FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDATION           R.D. Maynard, Chairman          INTRODUCTION          Pursuant to Idaho Code § 72-506, the Idaho Industrial Commission assigned the above-entitled matter to Referee LaDawn Marsters, who conducted a hearing in Idaho Falls on June 29, 2015. Claimant, Penny Weymiller, was present and represented herself pro se. Lea L. Kerr, of Boise, represented Employer Lockheed Idaho Technologies ("Lockheed") and Surety Employers Insurance of Wausau. The parties presented oral and documentary evidence at the hearing. Claimant noticed but did not take the post-hearing deposition of her treating physician, Dr. Thurman. Following the hearing Referee Marsters left the Commission and the matter was reassigned to Referee John C. Hummel. The matter came under advisement on January 27, 2016.          ISSUES          The issues noticed for hearing were as follows:

1. Whether Claimant has complied with the notice limitations set forth in Idaho Code §§ 72-701 through 72-706;

2. Whether Claimant sustained an injury from an accident arising out of and in the course of employment; and

3. Whether and to what extent Claimant is entitled to further medical care.

         The parties did not argue the first two issues in their post-hearing briefs, nor do those issues appear to be dispositive of this matter. Therefore, the sole issue to be decided is Claimant's entitlement to further medical care.          CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES          This case originated with Claimant's 1994 report of an occupational disease, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome ("CTS"), which identified her workplace exposure as beginning in 1991. Surety denied the initial claim. After Claimant filed another claim report in 2000, Surety re-evaluated and reversed its previous denial. Thereafter Claimant received various allowed medical treatments for CTS, including prescription pain medications, wrist braces, and open left CTS release surgery performed on June 6, 2007. Claimant's treating physician released her to return to work without restrictions on September 20, 2007. Surety then closed the claim. Thereafter, Claimant did not seek medical treatment for her CTS again until May 2012. Claimant now seeks compensability of additional medical treatment for her CTS in the form of doctor visits, new wrist braces and pain medication.          Claimant argues that her current need for medical treatment is reasonable and causally-related to the original workplace exposure to conditions that caused her CTS beginning in 1991. Defendants argue that Claimant is not entitled to further medical treatment for CTS because she has not produced any medical evidence demonstrating that the current need for medical treatment is related to the accepted condition.          EVIDENCE CONSIDERED          The record in this matter consists of the following:

1. The Industrial Commission legal file;

2. Claimant's Exhibits A through C, admitted at the hearing;

3. Defendants' Exhibits 1 through 3 and 5 through 8, admitted at the hearing; and

4. The testimony of Claimant and Leslie Soderquist taken at the hearing.

         After having considered the above evidence and the arguments of the parties, the Referee submits the following findings of fact and conclusion of law for review by the Commission.          FINDINGS OF FACT          1. Claimant was 51 years old and resided in Idaho Falls at the time of hearing.          2. Claimant began working as an environmental scientist for EG&G, a contractor at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory ("INL"), in or about October 1989. Through 2001 she continued to work for a series of successor contractors at the INL, including Lockheed. Her work for these INL contractors involved environmental compliance and waste disposal management.          3. Although she had brief periods of unemployment beginning in 2001 when she was laid off at the INL site, Ex. A:6, Claimant continued to work full-time or near full-time in environmental compliance and related fields in the Idaho Falls area through the date of the hearing. Her employers since 2002 included the following: Portage Environmental (2002 – 2007); Idaho Falls School District 9 (2007 – 2011); and Shoshone Bannock Tribes (2012 through the date of the hearing.) Ex. 7:70,74,84.          4. In the course of performing environmental compliance and waste disposal management work at the INL site, Claimant engaged in a significant amount of data entry in databases to document the disposal of waste and chemicals. She attributes her original exposure to conditions which caused her CTS to computer keyboarding while performing data entry for EG&G in 1991. Tr., 13:14–15; Ex. B:2. Claimant's supervisor at EG&G, Leslie Soderquist, recalls that Claimant began complaining of pain in her wrists from keyboarding at work in 1991. Id., 47:13–21.          5. On July 28, 1994, Claimant filed her initial Notice of Injury and Claim for Benefits. She reported the date of injury as "since 1991" and stated that her "wrist became sore while doing data entry." Ex. B:2. Surety denied compensability of the claim. Id. at 3. The record contains no evidence concerning the basis for Surety's denial.          6. In or about 2000 Claimant was working for Lockheed, a successor contractor at the INL site, which was also insured for workers compensation through Defendant Surety. On March 1, 2000, she filed a Worker's Compensation Claim Report in which she alleged in pertinent part as follows: "Wrist began bothering me in 1991. Turned into Workmen's [sic] Comp in 1994… Diagnosed as carpal tunnel by neurologist in 1995. This is a chronic problem since 1991. My wrists and hand begin aching within 5 minutes of beginning to work on computer. I have been wearing wrist braces since 1991." Ex. 1:1.          7. Surety re-evaluated and accepted the claim. On May 30, 2000, Bradley J. Street, a Claims Examiner with Surety, informed Claimant by letter in pertinent part as follows:

We have re-evaluated this claim which was originally denied and have now accepted your bi-lat. carpal tunnel syndrome as being related to your work and originally started in 1991. We have reversed our decision

...