Workers’ Compensation – Causation – Statute of Limitations – Notice – Timeliness – Credit

White v. Charles T. Hall Law Firm. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-08-0317, 12 pp.) (Commissioner Bernadine S. Ballance) Appealed from Opinion & Award of Deputy Commissioner John B, DeLuca. I.C. No. 976386.

Holding: Plaintiff showed that her upper extremity symptoms were related to her work as a legal assistant at a law firm, and not to her 22-year history as a hairdresser. She is entitled to periods of temporary total compensation for periods in which she was out of work to undergo medical procedures, as well as from May 9, 2008 – the date her doctor took her out of work and attributed her ongoing symptoms to her employment – to the present and continuing.

Plaintiff filed her Form 18 approximately 34 days after she was advised by a competent medical authority that her duties as a legal assistant for the law firm were causing many of her left upper extremity conditions. Her filing delay was reasonable and such delay did not prejudice the firm.

Facts

Plaintiff began working for the law firm in 2002 after spending 22 years as a hairdresser. Her duties as a legal assistant included performing keyboarding/mousing, drafting and mailing correspondence, making telephone calls, setting up files and other filing duties, writing, scanning, photocopying, faxing, hole-punching and ordering medical records. 

In 2003 she presented to an orthopedist, reporting a history of right elbow and forearm pain dating back three years.  She did not recall any injury or associate any particular cause for her complaints.

A doctor diagnosed her as suffering from chronic right lateral epicondylitis. Plaintiff underwent a right lateral epicondylar release with partial ostectomy. She continued to see the doctor post-operatively and remained out of work due to the surgery July 3-8, 2003. Plaintiff eventually returned to her usual duties as a legal assistant.

Plaintiff’s symptoms continued in both wrists, and in 2006, she underwent a left wrist arthroscopic debridement which showed a left wrist small peripheral TFCC tear and partial lunar triquetral ligament tear. She was out of work Jan. 5-17, 2006, then returned to her regular duties as a legal assistant.

Subsequently, on July 13, 2006, plaintiff underwent a left carpal tunnel release and was out of work through July 21, 2006. She then returned to her regular duties as a legal assistant.

In 2008, plaintiff had a discussion with her supervising attorney concerning possible options she might have regarding her ongoing upper extremity complaints and her work. The attorney suggested that plaintiff consider filing a workers’ compensation claim.

Plaintiff filed a Form 18 on June 12, 2008. 

Analysis

The commission finds that plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claim is not barred by the applicable filing limitations, as no physician advised her that her employment was the cause of her left upper extremity conditions until May 9, 2008, when a doctor told her that her employment was a likely cause of her lateral and medial epicondylitis, left carpal tunnel syndrome and extensor carpi ulnaris tendonitis.

Although not filed within 30 days, the commission finds that the law firm had timely notice of plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claim, when she verbally gave notice of her intent to file a claim. 

Plaintiff filed her Form 18 approximately 34 days after she was advised by a competent medical authority that her duties as a legal assistant for the law firm were causing many of her left upper extremity conditions and less than 30 days after the firm had actual notice of her workers’ compensation claim. Her filing delay was reasonable, and such delay in providing written notice did not prejudice the firm.

The commission finds, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that plaintiff’s duties as a legal assistant for the law firm created an increased risk for contracting lateral and medial epicondylitis, carpal tunnel syndrome, and extensor carpi ulnaris tendinitis over that of the general population. 

The commission further finds that plaintiff’s duties as a legal assistant for the firm were significant causative factors in her development and/or aggravation of her lateral and medial epicondylitis, carpal tunnel syndrome, and extensor carpi ulnaris tendonitis that her doctors diagnosed and treated.

The commission finds that plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proving that her duties as a legal assistant for the firm created an increased risk for contracting her TFCC tear, or were significant causative factors in the development and/or aggravation of her TFCC tear.

The commission finds that plaintiff proved that she was temporarily and totally disabled from July 3, 2003 through July 8, 2003, when she underwent a right lateral epicondylar release with partial ostectomy; from July 13, 2006, through July 21, 2006, when she underwent a left carpal tunnel release; from May 7, 2007, through May 18, 2007, when she underwent a left lateral epicondylar release with partial ostectomy, left extensor carpi ulnaris decompression, and bilateral medial epicondylar cortisone injections; and from Jan. 24, 2008 through Jan. 31, 2008, when she underwent a right medial epicondylar release with partial ostectomy.

The commission further finds that plaintiff proved that she was temporarily and totally disabled from May 9, 2008, through the present and continuing. 

The firm could not accommodate plaintiff’s permanent work restrictions, and plaintiff made attempts to find suitable employment within her work restrictions, but was unsuccessful. Plaintiff has received long-term disability compensation and it was entirely employer-funded.

The commission finds, based upon the greater weight of the evidence, that the law firm is entitled to a credit for the long-term disability compensation paid to plaintiff as a result of her compensable occupational diseases.

The law firm shall pay all medical expenses incurred or to be incurred as a result of plaintiff’s compensable occupational diseases of lateral and medial epicondylitis, carpal tunnel syndrome, and extensor carpi ulnaris tendonitis for so long as such evaluations, examinations, and treatments may reasonably be required to effect a cure, to give relief, and/or to lessen her period of disability.