DOLINA v. FABRICUT, INC.

2014 OK CIV APP 97, 340 P.3d 22, 2014 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 73, 2014 WL 7182999
Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma·Decided November 7, 2014·No. 112,595·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

KEITH RAPP, Judge.

1 Claimant, Michael Carl Dolina, appeals the Order on Appeal Affirming the Decision of the Trial Court entered by a three-judge panel of the Workers' Compensation Court denying Claimant's request for a finding of a cumulative trauma injury to his right shoulder. 1

BACKGROUND

2 Claimant worked for Employer, Fabri-cut, Inc., a producer of home-furnishing textiles, for forty-three years, most recently as an export sales manager. Claimant's employment requires him to travel extensively and carry a heavy sample case filled with fabric when he travels.

13 On April 24, 2007, Claimant experienced a popping in his right shoulder while lifting a box at work for Employer. Claimant reported the injury to Employer and Employer sent Claimant to an occupational medical elinic, One Source, in Tulsa on April 27. The doctor at One Source diagnosed Claimant with a right shoulder sprain. Claimant returned to One Source on May 1, 2007, and September 20, 2007. The diagnosis each time was right shoulder sprain and right shoulder bursitis and tendonitis. Claimant was also scheduled to be seen at One Source on September 27, 2007, but did not appear for his appointment.

T4 Claimant did not seek any additional treatment for his right shoulder until November 2012, when he saw his primary care physician, James Bailey, M.D., for an annual examination and discussed his right shoulder issues. Dr. Bailey referred Claimant to Jay Lorton, M.D., an orthopedic doctor. Dr. Lorton examined Claimant on November 27, 2012. Claimant told Dr. Lorton that "a few months ago he was trying to trim the hedges *24 with handheld manual clippers when he had some pain in his right shoulder. [Claimant] did notice some bruising in his shoulder about a year ago as well." Dr. Lorton diagnosed Claimant with a "[rlJight shoulder rota-tor cuff impingement with probable chronic tear." Dr. Lorton ordered an MRI for Claimant.

15 After seeing Dr. Lorton, Claimant approached Employer with his paperwork from One Source and Dr. Lorton. Employer gave Claimant the necessary paperwork for a workers' compensation claim. Employer subsequently notified Claimant that his claim for benefits was denied.

16 On February 19, 2013, Claimant filed a Form 3 alleging he sustained a rotator cuff tear to his right shoulder as the result of an employment-related cumulative trauma injury. He listed his date of accident as April 24, 2007, on his Amended Form 8.

T7 Employer filed a Form 10 Answer and Pretrial Stipulation on May 28, 2018. Employer denied Claimant sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment and asserted that Claimant had failed to timely file his claim or give notice of the injury to Employer. Employer specifically asserted the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense.

18 The workers' compensation trial court conducted a hearing on the issue of compens-ability of Claimant's claim of a cumulative trauma injury to his right shoulder. At trial, Claimant testified that he felt a popping and discomfort in his right shoulder on April 24, 2007, while lifting a box at work. He said that his shoulder had progressively gotten worse and that any type of exertion made the right shoulder worse. Claimant testified he does gardening, boating, and fishing and suffers discomfort when he does anything. He stated that he did not receive any medical treatment to his right shoulder from September 2007 to December 2012. He also never told Employer he needed additional treatment during this time.

T9 Claimant offered medical evidence in support of his claim for a work-related cumulative trauma injury. Employer offered medical evidence in support of denying the claim.

{10 After the hearing, the workers' compensation trial court entered an Order Denying Compensability, filed on November 12, 2013. The court made the following findings:

-1-
THAT claimant sustained admitted single event injury to the RIGHT SHOULDER on April 24, 2007. [Employer] provided medical treatment through September 27, 2007 (no-show to medical appointment by claimant).
-2-
Claimant now couches his claim as injury via cumulative trauma, rather than single event, with date of awareness April 24, 2007 and last date of exposure in April 3013[siel.
-3-
The court finds that the major cause of claimant's condition is the single event injury of April 24, 2007.
-4-
THAT, finally, the court finds that cumulative trauma, if any, sustained by claimant from April 24, 2007 to April, 2018, does not rise to the level of a compensable cumulative trauma injury.

The workers' compensation trial court denied Claimant's request for compensation.

111 Claimant appealed to a three-judge panel. After conducting oral arguments, the three-judge panel entered an Order on Appeal Affirming the Decision of the Trial Court, filed on February 7, 2014. The three-judge panel found the trial court's Order Denying Compensability was not against the clear weight of the evidence nor contrary to law and unanimously affirmed the trial court's decision.

12 Claimant appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

113 The appellate standard of review in a workers' compensation case is determined by the law in effect on the date of injury. Williams Companies, Inc. v. Dunkelgod, 2012 OK 96, ¶ 18, 295 P.3d 1107, 1113. The date of injury in a cumulative traumas *25 case is the date the claimant first becomes aware of the job-related injury. American Airlines, Inc. v. Crabb, 2009 OK 68, ¶ 8, 221 P.3d 1289, 1291. The Workers Compensation Court found, and Claimant agrees, that Claimant's date of awareness was April 24, 2007. This Court must apply the any competent evidence standard on review because the injury occurred prior to enactment of Section 3.6(C). 2

ANALYSIS

T 14 On appeal, Claimant argues the Workers' Compensation Court erred because it misapplied and misinterpreted the law on cumulative trauma by focusing on Claimant's single-event injury rather than the aggravation of the April 24, 2007, injury. Although Claimant argues this appeal presents a question of law, the issue on appeal is whether the Workers' Compensation Court's finding that Claimant's injury did not rise to the level of a compensable work-related cumulative trauma injury and denying benefits is supported by competent evidence.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DOLINA v. FABRICUT, INC., 2014 OK CIV APP 97, 340 P.3d 22, 2014 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 73, 2014 WL 7182999 (Okla. Ct. App. 2014).

2014 OK CIV APP 97 (DOLINA v. FABRICUT, INC.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

DOLINA v. FABRICUT, INC.
2014 OK CIV APP 97 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2014)