Donnis Goodman v. Haan Crafts, LLC (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 15 2016, 7:59 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Zachary T. Williams Thomas F. Cohen
Withered Burns, LLP Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros LLP
Lafayette, Indiana South Bend, Indiana
Reid D. Murtaugh
Murtaugh Law
Lafeyette, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Donnis Goodman, June 15, 2016
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
93A02-1511-EX-2065
v. Appeal from the Worker’s
Compensation Board of Indiana
Haan Crafts, LLC, Linda P. Hamilton, Chairman
Appellee-Defendant. Application Number
C-204767
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1511-EX-2065 |June 15, 2016 Page 1 of 10
Case Summary
[1] Donnis Goodman suffered a lumbar strain as a result of a work-related accident
while she was employed by Haan Crafts. While she was being treated for the
lumbar strain, Goodman was diagnosed with spondylolisthesis at L4-L5.
Goodman claimed that the spondylolisthesis also resulted from her work-
related injury, and Haan Crafts claimed that the spondylolisthesis was
degenerative and not work-related. Unable to resolve this dispute after more
than four years, the parties submitted the issue to a single hearing member of
the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board. The single hearing member found
that Goodman had not proven her spondylolisthesis was work-related and, as a
result, denied her requests for compensation beyond what Haan Crafts had paid
for her lumbar strain. The full Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board (Board)
affirmed the single hearing member’s decision, and Goodman now appeals.
[2] In order to be compensable under the Worker’s Compensation Act, an injury
must arise out of employment. The Board’s finding that Goodman’s
spondylolisthesis did not arise from her employment is supported by reports
from three doctors and is fatal to her claim for additional worker’s
compensation benefits. Therefore, we affirm the Board’s decision.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] The facts most favorable to the Board’s decision are as follows. Goodman was
employed by Haan Crafts as a machine and silk-screen operator. In January
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1511-EX-2065 |June 15, 2016 Page 2 of 10
2010, she “sustained a work-related injury to her low back” while attempting to
remove a large screen from a print table. Appellant’s App. p. 5. Haan Crafts
accepted Goodman’s worker’s compensation claim as compensable and
authorized medical care through three physicians: Dr. William Bray, Dr. Erika
Cottrell, and Dr. Robert Bigler (collectively “authorized physicians”).
[4] Goodman initially sought treatment from Dr. Bray. He ordered an MRI, which
showed Goodman had a disk bulge at L4-L5. However, he concluded that
“[t]he MRI finding of a bulge does not constitute an acute finding, nor does it
correlate very well with her various and changing lower extremity symptoms. I
believe this to be an incidental finding[.]” Tr. p. 133. He indicated that the disk
bulge was “non-work related” and reported that Goodman was at maximum
medical improvement (MMI) for her work-related injury with no permanent
partial impairment (PPI).1
[5] Goodman saw Dr. Cottrell twice in April 2010. Dr. Cottrell diagnosed
Goodman with lumbar spondylolisthesis. She also noted that the disk bulge at
L4-L5 “did not match up completely with [Goodman’s] symptoms and that it
generally does not happen with a pulling injury such as hers.” Id. at 140. After
discontinuing treatment, Dr. Cottrell conducted a review of Goodman’s
1
The phrase “maximum medical improvement” means that a worker has achieved the fullest reasonably
expected recovery with respect to a work-related injury. Perkins v. Jayco, 905 N.E.2d 1085, 1088-89 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2009). Once a worker’s injury has stabilized to a permanent and quiescent state, temporary disability
ceases, and the extent of permanent injury resulting in a degree of impairment (PPI) is determined pursuant
to the schedules in Indiana Code section 22-3-3-10. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1511-EX-2065 |June 15, 2016 Page 3 of 10
medical records from the authorized physicians and concluded that Goodman
was at MMI with no PPI.
[6] In May 2010, Goodman went to Dr. Bigler at Pain Care Center. He also
indicated that Goodman’s MRI did not match her symptoms and that her pain
was more likely the result of a strain.2 Dr. Bigler performed a translaminar
epidural steroid injection on May 19, 2010, and released Goodman to return to
work without restrictions on May 24, 2010.
[7] Haan Crafts stopped providing benefits when Dr. Bigler released Goodman to
work without restrictions. On June 1, 2010, Goodman filed an Application for
Adjustment of Claim with the Board seeking continued benefits.
[8] During the time that Goodman was being treated by the three authorized
physicians, she was also being seen by Dr. Mario Brkaric without authorization
from Haan Crafts. Appellant’s App. p. 6. Dr. Brkaric also diagnosed
Goodman with lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, unlike the three authorized
physicians, shortly after Goodman filed her application for adjustment, he
wrote a report stating that he felt “within reasonable medical certainty that her
injury at work has caused and correlates with her symptoms.” Tr. p. 50.
2
Dr. Bigler’s conclusions are taken from Dr. Cottrell’s July 2010 record review. Goodman contends that it is
impermissible to rely on Dr. Cottrell’s record review for Dr. Bigler’s conclusions because there is no report
from Dr. Bigler containing the same information and entered into the record. We note that hearsay is
admissible in worker’s compensation hearings and may be relied upon by the Board, particularly where, as
here, there was no objection to the hearsay evidence during the administrative proceeding. Brown Tire Co. v.
Underwriters Adjusting Co., 573 N.E.2d 901, 903 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1511-EX-2065 |June 15, 2016 Page 4 of 10
[9] In August 2010, Goodman filed a request with the Board seeking further
medical care with Dr. Brkaric and an independent medical examination (IME).
After a hearing and review of the medical records from all four doctors, the
Board denied Goodman’s request.
[10] Despite the denial, Goodman continued treatment with Dr. Brkaric. In July
2011, Goodman obtained Medicaid coverage, and Dr. Brkaric performed
surgery to correct her spondylolisthesis at L4-L5. One year after the surgery,
Goodman had a herniated disk at L3-L4 with nerve-root impingement. Dr.
Brkaric surgically corrected that disk in August 2012. According to Goodman,
her condition was worse after the two surgeries and she now must use a walker
or a cane. On June 6, 2014, Dr. Brkaric prepared a report indicating that
Goodman still rated her pain as 8/10. He concluded that she could not return
to any type of work and gave a PPI rating of 15%.
[11] In November 2014, after numerous continuances, a single hearing member of
the Board conducted a hearing on Goodman’s June 2010 application for
adjustment of her claim. Goodman sought reimbursement of past and future
medical expenses, a PPI rating, palliative care for the PPI, and permanent total
disability.3
3
It also appears that Goodman sought additional temporary total disability. However, she expressly waived
any additional temporary total disability in her answers to sworn interrogatories. Tr. p. 173. Therefore, we
do not address that request here.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1511-EX-2065 |June 15, 2016 Page 5 of 10
[12] The single hearing member found that “[a]ny disability or impairment suffered
by [Goodman] is the result of conditions unrelated to her work injury.”
Appellant’s App. p. 7. Accordingly, the single hearing member concluded that
Goodman was not entitled to compensation for her medical expenses, PPI, or
total disability. The decision denied Goodman any benefits beyond what Haan
Crafts had already paid for her lumbar strain. Goodman appealed to the full
Board, which adopted the single hearing member’s decision.
[13] Goodman now appeals the decision of the Board.4
Discussion and Decision
[14] Goodman contends that the Board erred in determining that she is not entitled
to any benefits, beyond those she already received for her lumbar strain, as a
result of her January 2010 accident.5 Goodman argues that the January 2010
4
Haan Crafts cross-appeals, arguing that Goodman’s petition for full-Board review was untimely and should
have been dismissed. We do not reach Haan Crafts’s cross-appeal because we affirm the Board’s decision.
5
Goodman also argues that the Board’s findings are not sufficiently specific to permit meaningful review
and, therefore, the order must be reversed and remanded. The Board has a general duty to issue findings that
reveal its analysis of the evidence and that are specific enough to permit intelligent review of its decision.
Triplett v. USX Corp., 893 N.E.2d 1107, 1116 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. When the Board denies
compensation because the claimant has failed to sustain his burden of proof, the Board should designate
which material element(s) of the claim the worker failed to prove, and “when the evidence is conflicting, the
Board should delineate that evidence upon which its analysis and ultimate factual conclusion is based[.]”
Rork v. Szabo Foods, 436 N.E.2d 64, 69 (Ind. 1982). Here, the Board made clear that Goodman failed to prove
her spondylolisthesis was work-related—an essential element. As to the conflicting physician reports, the
findings indicate that the Board relied upon evidence from the three authorized physicians to reach its
conclusion. This is unlike Smith v. Henry C. Smithers Roofing Co., 771 N.E.2d 1164 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002),
where the Board did not indicate what evidence it relied upon in the findings. In Smith, this Court “reviewed
over one thousand pages of evidence admitted at the hearing, including various depositions from Smith’s
treating physicians and Smith’s medical records[,]” and was still unable to discern “which facts the hearing
judge relied upon in reaching his decision.” 771 N.E.2d at 1168. The problem in Smith does not exist here.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1511-EX-2065 |June 15, 2016 Page 6 of 10
accident also caused her spondylolisthesis at L4-L5 and that the
spondylolisthesis has resulted in a 15% PPI, as well as additional medical
expenses and permanent total disability.
[15] The Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act requires employers to provide their
employees with “compensation for personal injury or death by accident arising
out of and in the course of the employment . . . .” Ind. Code § 22-3-2-2(a). The
parties dispute whether Goodman’s injury arose out of her employment with
Haan Crafts. An injury arises out of employment when there is a causal
relationship between the employment and the injury, and a causal relationship
exists when the injury would not have occurred in the absence of the accident.
Outlaw v. Erbrich Products Co., 777 N.E.2d 14, 25 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans.
denied.
[16] In evaluating the Board’s decision, we employ a two-tiered review. Triplett v.
USX Corp., 893 N.E.2d 1107, 1116 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. We first
review the record to determine if there is any competent evidence of probative
value to support the Board’s findings and, second, we assess whether the
findings are sufficient to support the decision. Id. Because this is an appeal
from a negative decision, we will not disturb the Board’s factual findings unless
we conclude that the evidence is undisputed and leads inescapably to a contrary
result. Id. We consider only the evidence that tends to support the Board’s
decision and any uncontradicted adverse evidence. Id. We will not reweigh the
evidence or assess witness credibility. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1511-EX-2065 |June 15, 2016 Page 7 of 10
[17] The Board found that “[a]ny disability or impairment suffered by Goodman is
the result of conditions unrelated to her work injury.” Appellant’s App. p. 7.
This finding is supported by the parties’ stipulation that all three authorized
physicians found Goodman to be at MMI with no impairment and that she was
able to return to work without restrictions. All three authorized physicians saw
the disk bulge at L4-L5 in the MRI and concluded that it was an incidental
finding, degenerative, not acute, or not related to the injury she sustained at
work. This evidence sufficiently supports the Board’s finding that Goodman’s
spondylolisthesis was not work-related.
[18] Nevertheless, Goodman argues that the three authorized physicians failed to
state that her condition was not work-related with sufficient medical certainty to
support the Board’s finding. When a doctor’s testimony falls short of
“reasonable medical certainty,” it cannot support a decision by itself. Bertoch v.
NBD Corp., 813 N.E.2d 1159, 1162 (Ind. 2004). However, the doctor’s
testimony can still be considered in conjunction with other relevant evidence.
Id.
[19] Goodman points out that none of the authorized physicians used the words
“reasonable medical certainty” in their reports concluding that her injury was
not work-related, while Dr. Brkaric specifically used the words in his report
concluding that it was work-related. Additionally, Dr. Cottrell expressly did
not rule out the possibility that the disk bulge was work-related in her initial
report.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1511-EX-2065 |June 15, 2016 Page 8 of 10
[20] First, the fact that Dr. Brkaric used the words of the legal standard in his report
does not make his conclusion unassailable by conflicting evidence. Likewise,
the lack of a definitive conclusion from the authorized physicians does not
prevent the Board from considering their reports in combination with all of the
evidence. In considering the opinions of all four physicians, the Board gave
greater weight to the opinions of the three authorized physicians than to Dr.
Brkaric. While we will not reweigh the evidence, the record does show that all
three authorized physicians ultimately indicated that they did not believe the
disk bulge in Goodman’s MRI was work-related, and Dr. Cottrell and Dr. Bray
indicated this was likely a degenerative, as opposed to an acute, condition.
That is sufficient evidence to support the Board’s finding.
[21] Finally, Goodman argues that her case is similar to Smith v. Henry C. Smithers
Roofing Co., 771 N.E.2d 1164 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), in that, if her
spondylolisthesis at L4-L5 was a preexisting condition, then it was aggravated
by the January 2010 accident, and Haan Crafts should still be liable. In Smith,
the Board did not address the possibility that Smith’s preexisting medical
condition was aggravated by his work-related accident, despite the fact that
“Smith’s physicians indicated that the accident, while not the proximate cause
of all of Smith’s injuries, aggravated his pre-existing condition[.]” 771 N.E.2d
at 1168. It is well established that a worker may be awarded compensation
when a preexisting condition is aggravated by an accident which occurs during
the performance of his regular work duties. Ellis v. Hubbell Metals, Inc., 366
N.E.2d 207, 211 (Ind. Ct. App. 1977).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1511-EX-2065 |June 15, 2016 Page 9 of 10
[22] However, Goodman failed to prove that her work-related injury aggravated her
spondylolisthesis. Although Goodman argues that Dr. Bray “fails to report
whether the work-injury aggravated the disk injury,” Appellant’s Br. p. 13, this
is not sufficient to support a finding that it did—particularly where three doctors
found the disk bulge to be unrelated to the work injury, found Goodman to be
at MMI, and released her to return to work without restrictions.
[23] As for the first prong of our review, we find that there is competent evidence of
probative value to support the Board’s finding that “[a]ny disability or
impairment suffered by Goodman is the result of conditions unrelated to her
work injury.” Turning to the second prong, the findings must be sufficient to
support the Board’s conclusion. Indiana Code section 22-3-2-2(a) requires that
the injury must arise out of the employment for it to be compensable. Because
the Board found that Goodman failed to prove her injury was work-related, she
has not met the requirements to prove that her injury is compensable.
Accordingly, Goodman has not proven she is entitled to additional benefits.
[24] Affirmed.
Barnes, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1511-EX-2065 |June 15, 2016 Page 10 of 10