Masterbrand Cabinets v. Waid

• Citation: 72 N.E.3d 986
• Decision Date: 30 March 2017
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals Case No. 93A02-1609-EX-2228
• Parties: MASTERBRAND CABINETS, Appellant, v. Douglas WAID, Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana

72 N.E.3d 986

MASTERBRAND CABINETS, Appellant,

v.Douglas WAID, Appellee.

Court of Appeals Case No. 93A02-1609-EX-2228

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Filed March 30, 2017

Attorney for Appellant : Carol Modesitt Wyatt, Dugan & Voland, LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorney for Appellee : Charles S. Hewins, Hewins Law Firm, Evansville, Indiana

Barnes, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] Masterbrand Cabinets ("Masterbrand") appeals a decision of the Indiana Worker's Compensation Board ("Board") awarding temporary total disability benefits to Douglas Waid. We affirm.

Issue

[2] Masterbrand raises one issue, which we restate as whether the Board properly awarded temporary total disability ("TTD") benefits to Waid following an on-the-job injury and a termination from his job for misconduct.

Facts

[3] Masterbrand hired Waid in June 2013 as a production associate, which involved doing physical labor. During his employment Waid was "coached" for his workplace conduct on several occasions regarding anger issues. Tr. p. 49. On June 6, 2014, Waid slipped while working and injured his lower back. Waid promptly notified his supervisor of the injury, but he initially thought that medical care would be unnecessary. However, Waid's pain got worse, and Masterbrand eventually referred him to Dr. James Butler. Waid saw Dr. Butler on June 24, 2014, complaining of shooting pains in his back and pains down into his leg. Dr. Butler determined that, "to make an absolute causation determination," he needed medical records related to Waid's prior back problems. Ex. p. 7. Dr. Butler returned Waid to "full duty." Id. Waid disagreed with the full duty recommendation, but he did try to return to work. After working a full shift, he was unable to get out of bed the next day. On June 26, 2014, he returned to work. Waid got into a verbal altercation with his supervisor regarding his back pain and his lack of work restrictions. He threw his ice pack, nearly striking another employee, and cursed at his supervisor. Masterbrand suspended Waid and terminated his employment effective July 2, 2014.

[4] Waid returned to Dr. Butler on July 1, 2014, and Dr. Butler placed Waid on restrictions of "max lifting of 20 lbs and change position as often as needed." Id. at 12. On July 28, 2014, Waid had another appointment with Dr. Butler. Waid continued to complain of severe pain, and Dr. Butler ordered physical therapy but removed the work restrictions. On September 29, 2014, Dr. Butler released Waid from treatment, found maximum medical improvement ("MMI"), and assigned a three percent whole-person impairment rating.

[5] In October 2014, Waid filed a motion to compel an independent medical examination ("IME") by an orthopedic surgeon or a neurosurgeon. After a hearing, the Single Hearing Member found:

2. Plaintiff immediately reported the injury to his employer.

3. Plaintiff initially told his employer that he felt he would be okay and advised that he did have prior back problems.

4. Over the ensuing weekend the condition became worse and worse.

5. Plaintiff reported the increase in symptoms to his employer but there was no immediate follow up.

6. Plaintiff was finally seen for medical examination on June 24, 2014 by James Butler, M.D. Dr. Butler seemed to be more focused on making a causation determination than active treatment. Dr. Butler declined to place any work restriction in spite of Plaintiff's ongoing complaints of pain and limitations.

7. With respect to Plaintiff's medical history with his back, he advised Defendant and freely admitted in testimony to his past history. He established through the evidence, however, that by June 6, 2014 he was unrestricted in his physical abilities and doing his full function for Defendant.

8. Plaintiff was continuing to have difficulty doing full-duty, as Dr. Butler advised Defendant Plaintiff could so perform, and was upset about the impact the full-duty work was having on his back pain.

9. One of Defendant's representatives advised Plaintiff that either he could do the job or they would get someone who would. Plaintiff was terminated shortly thereafter.

10. Plaintiff saw Dr. Butler on July 1, 2014 and, after Plaintiff advised Dr. Butler that Defendant had terminated him, Dr. Butler only then imposed a twenty (20) pound weight restriction.

11. After receiving a new MRI and comparing it with a prior one, even though Plaintiff continued to have sharp pain in his back and in his leg, which Plaintiff describes as almost unbearable, Dr. Butler released Plaintiff at maximum medical improvement.

12. The Single Hearing Member finds that the appointment of an independent medical examiner pursuant to Indiana Code 22-3-4-11 is appropriate in the circumstances.

13. This matter is therefore referred to the Ombudsman Division of the Worker's Compensation Board for the appointment of an independent medical examiner at the expense of Defendant as a statutory medical expense.

Appellee's App. Vol. II pp. 6-7. Dr. Mike Chou examined Waid on August 26, 2015. Dr. Chou found that Waid probably had an exacerbation of a preexisting back condition and that "perhaps 10-20%" was attributed to the job injury. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 52. He diagnosed Waid with "bilateral L5 radiculopathy

secondary to protruding intervertebral disc at L4-5." Id. Dr. Chou stated that Waid "should be able to return to work at sedentary duty" but that continued symptoms might require surgery. Id. Further, Dr. Chou stated that Waid would "reach his point of maximum medical improvement either after this episode of pain resolves without surgery, or if not, then the patient will reach it after surgery and recovering from that." Id.

[6] After another hearing, the Single Hearing Member issued findings of fact and conclusions of law as follows:

1. Defendant introduced evidence designed to demonstrate that Plaintiff was terminated for just cause and that Plaintiff's conduct fell well below the standard reasonably expected of an employee in relation to his employer and its representatives.

2. In the context of determining an injured worker's entitlement to temporary total disability or temporary partial disability benefits, the Board is not required (nor is it empowered) to make determinations of the justness of the termination or the level of misconduct of the injured worker.

3. Instead, the Board must merely determine whether the injuries sustained at work produced an inability, total or partial, to work.

4. Unquestionably Plaintiff has an inability to perform work of the same kind or character as he was performing when injured.

5. It was Plaintiff's staunch belief that he was limited in his ability to work that resulted in the confrontation which ultimately led to his termination.

6. Plaintiff was correct and the medical records demonstrate that Plaintiff retains only a very limited capacity to work at this point; he has been released to perform work of a sedentary nature.

7. Plaintiff has been so limited since the date of his injury and that limitation continued through the date of hearing on this issue.

8. Plaintiff is entitled to an award for his temporary total disability from June 27, 2014 through the date of hearing and continuing until terminated in accordance with the Act and/or when ordered by the Board.

Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 10.

[7] Masterbrand appealed the Single Hearing Member's decision to the Full Board. Masterbrand argued in part that Waid was not entitled to TTD benefits because he had been terminated for misconduct. The Full Board affirmed the award and modified the findings of fact and conclusions of law as follows:

1. Defendant introduced evidence designed to demonstrate that Plaintiff was terminated for just cause and that Plaintiff's conduct fell below the standard reasonably expected of an employee in relation to his employer and its representatives.

2. Unquestionably Plaintiff has an inability to perform work of the same kind or character as he was performing when injured.

3. It was Plaintiff's staunch belief that he was limited in his ability to work and that the doctor showed evidence bias that resulted in the confrontation that ultimately led to his termination.

4. Plaintiff is found to be credible.

5. Furthermore, Plaintiff's inability to work was related to his work injury in question.

6. Plaintiff was correct and the medical records demonstrate that Plaintiff retains only a very limited capacity to work at this point; he has been released to perform work of a sedentary nature.

7. Plaintiff has been so limited since the date of his injury and that limitation continued through the date of hearing on this issue.

8. Plaintiff is entitled to an award for his temporary total disability from June 27, 2014 through the date of hearing and continuing until terminated in accordance with the Act and/or when ordered by the Board.

Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 6. Masterbrand now appeals.

Analysis

[8] Masterbrand challenges the Board's award of TTD benefits to Waid. Our supreme court has held that the Worker's Compensation Act is to be liberally construed to " ‘effectuate the humane purposes of the Act.’ " Daugherty v. Indus. Contracting & Erecting , 802 N.E.2d 912, 919 (Ind. 2004) (quoting Talas v. Correct Piping Co., Inc. , 435 N.E.2d 22, 28 (Ind. 1982) ). " ‘[D]oubts in the application of terms are to be resolved in favor of the employee, for the passage of the Act was designed to shift the economic burden of a work-related injury from the injured employee to the industry and, ultimately, to the consuming public.’ " Id. (quoting Talas , 435 N.E.2d at 28 ).

[9] In reviewing a worker's compensation decision, we are bound by the factual determinations of the Board, and we may not disturb them unless the evidence is undisputed and leads inescapably to a contrary conclusion. Christopher R. Brown, D.D.S., Inc. v. Decatur Cty. Mem'l Hosp. , 892 N.E.2d 642, 646 (Ind. 2008). We examine the record only to determine whether substantial evidence and reasonable inferences support the Board's findings and conclusions....