Yepez v. Driscoll Brothers, 081916 IDWC, IC 2011-016953

Case DateAugust 19, 2016
CourtIdaho
JOSE YEPEZ, Claimant,
v.
DRISCOLL BROTHERS, Employer,
and
LIBERTY NORTHWEST INSURANCE CORP., Surety, Defendants.
No. IC 2011-016953
Idaho Workers Compensation
Before the Industrial Commission of the State of Idaho
August 19, 2016
          ORDER           R.D. Maynard, Chairman          Pursuant to Idaho Code § 72-717, Referee Brian Harper submitted the record in the above-entitled matter, together with his recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law, to the members of the Idaho Industrial Commission for their review. Each of the undersigned Commissioners has reviewed the record and the recommendations of the Referee. The Commission concurs with these recommendations. Therefore, the Commission approves, confirms, and adopts the Referee's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as its own.          Based upon the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:          1. Claimant has failed to prove his acute transient kidney failure and pulmonary complaints were caused in whole or in part by the industrial accident of May 31, 2011.          2. Claimant has failed to prove the right to medical care benefits, past or future.          3. Claimant has failed to prove he is entitled to temporary disability benefits.          4. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 72-718, this decision is final and conclusive as to all matters adjudicated.           Thomas E. Limbaugh, Commissioner, Thomas P. Baskin, Commissioner          FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDATION          INTRODUCTION          Pursuant to Idaho Code § 72-506, the Idaho Industrial Commission assigned the above-entitled matter to Referee Brian Harper, who conducted a hearing in Pocatello, Idaho, on July 22, 2015. Claimant was represented by Paul Curtis, of Idaho Falls. Lea Kear, of Boise, represented Driscoll Brothers ("Employer"), and Liberty Northwest Insurance Corp., ("Surety"), Defendants.1 Ester Torres served as an interpreter for Claimant. Oral and documentary evidence was admitted. Two post-hearing depositions were taken and the parties submitted post-hearing briefs. The matter came under advisement on July 21, 2016.           ISSUES          The issues to be decided are:
1. Whether the condition for which Claimant seeks benefits was caused by the industrial accident; and
2. Whether and to what extent Claimant is entitled to the following benefits:
a. Medical care; and
b. Temporary disability benefits.
         Reserved issues include PPI, PPD, retraining, and attorney fees.          CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES          Claimant argues that as a result of being sprayed by herbicides on May 31, 2011, while working for Employer, he suffered renal and pulmonary injuries. He is entitled to appropriate benefits for this accident.          Defendants argue Claimant suffered no compensable injuries when he was exposed to agricultural chemicals on May 31, 2011. Claimant is not entitled to any benefits.          EVIDENCE CONSIDERED          The record in this matter consists of the following:
1. Testimony of Claimant and his wife, Bonnie Yepez, taken at hearing;
2. Claimant's Exhibits (CE) 1 through 28, admitted at hearing;
3. Defendants' Exhibits (DE) 1 through 112, admitted at hearing;
4. The post-hearing deposition transcript of Stewart Curtis, D.O., taken on October 30, 2015; and
5. The post-hearing deposition transcript of Lawrence Klock, Jr., M.D., taken on January 26, 2016.
         Any objections preserved during the depositions are overruled.          Having considered the evidence and briefing of the parties, the Referee submits the following findings of fact and conclusions of law for review by the Commission.          FINDINGS OF FACT          1. At the time of hearing, Claimant was a 29 year old agricultural worker, living in Aberdeen.          2. Mid-morning on May 31, 2011, Claimant was working on irrigation wheel lines in a potato field at Employer's farming operations. Claimant noticed a chemical spraying truck enter the field where he was working. The truck began spraying chemicals as it proceeded toward him. Claimant finished his task and began walking out of the field. His course of egress took him directly toward the approaching chemical truck. The truck was spraying just two rows over from where Claimant was walking out of the field. As the sprayer went by Claimant, he turned his head away from the nozzle in an effort to shield his face from the chemicals.          3. As the sprayer passed by Claimant, chemical mist coated him from head to foot. Claimant's clothing was dampened by the chemical spray, more so on his right side. Because Claimant was walking in the direction opposite the sprayer's line of travel, Claimant had to walk through the residual chemical vapors and mist from the spraying operation all the way out of the field. Claimant estimates he was exposed to the chemical fumes for about two minutes.          4. Immediately after this exposure, Claimant felt nauseated and dizzy. His co-workers had seen what happened, and when Claimant told them how he felt, they suggested he drink lots of water. Claimant did as instructed, but continued to feel nauseated throughout the remainder of his work day, which lasted until after 7:00 p.m. Claimant did not change his clothing or shower until he got home after work.          5. Claimant developed a sore throat and cough by that evening. He also began to experience recurring bloody noses.3 These symptoms continued over the next few weeks, but eventually resolved without medical intervention. Although he testified he continued to feel poorly, Claimant missed no work throughout this time frame.          Claimant's Kidney Issue          6. On the afternoon of July 10, 2011, Claimant went to the Portneuf Medical Center emergency room complaining of left-sided flank pain. There he saw Kurtis Holt, M.D. Claimant indicated his pain began that morning, and intensified to the point where he sought medical treatment. Claimant's flank pain was accompanied by nausea.          7. Dr. Holt ordered a CT scan of Claimant's abdomen and pelvis, which uncovered a tiny punctate non-obstructing stone in Claimant's left kidney. The kidney scan also revealed minor bilateral perinephric stranding, but no hydronephrosis.4          8. Dr. Holt also ordered blood and urine lab tests. The urine tests came back normal. However, the blood work came back with a creatinine reading of 2.1, and BUN (blood urea nitrogen) of 22 – both indicative of impaired kidney function. The blood testing also showed an elevated white blood cell count.          9. Claimant was given an antibiotic IV at the hospital, and prescribed Cipro antibacterial tablets to treat his presumed renal colic. Prior to discharging Claimant, Dr. Holt also scheduled him for an appointment with a nephrologist.          10. Claimant presented at Idaho Physicians Clinic Nephrology in Blackfoot on July 14, 2011, and was initially seen by Michael Haderlie, M.D., a nephrologist. Claimant continued to complain of back pain, with tenderness radiating into his testicles bilaterally.          11. Dr. Haderlie's office notes include in Claimant's history a recitation of the chemical spraying incident, but the doctor was under the impression the event took place two weeks prior to Claimant's office visit. In reality, it had been about six weeks since the accident. Nevertheless, Claimant indicated that since then, he had not been feeling well, experiencing nausea and vomiting. Dr. Holt's notes recorded that Claimant began having significant back pain on Sunday, July 10, 2011, severe enough to prompt a trip to the emergency room on that date. The back pain was continuing.          12. Dr. Haderlie ordered lab work. The urinalysis was "completely unremarkable." However, Claimant's blood work showed an elevated creatinine level of 2. Claimant's white blood cell count was down from 11 to 7.4.          13. Dr. Haderlie diagnosed severe acute kidney injury. The doctor felt the injury was most likely from an infectious source, causing bilateral kidney inflammation. Dr. Haderlie prescribed another antibiotic, azithromycin, in addition to Claimant's previously-prescribed Cipro.          14. Dr. Haderlie could not rule out chemical exposure as the source of Claimant's problem, and asked him to find out exactly what chemicals he had been exposed to when he was sprayed...

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