Hayes v. General Motors

813 S.W.2d 62, 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 949, 1991 WL 104450
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 18, 1991
DocketNo. 59011
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 813 S.W.2d 62 (Hayes v. General Motors) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hayes v. General Motors, 813 S.W.2d 62, 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 949, 1991 WL 104450 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

PUDLOWSKI, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from a Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s decision. Appellant, Bumedine Hayes, (hereinafter Hayes), a former employee of General Motors Assembly Division (hereinafter General Motors) in Wentzville, Missouri, claims that she suffered an occupational disease or accident through an injury to her right wrist in May 1985 due to the use of an air gun on the assembly line at respondent, General Motors. Hayes began her employment at General Motors on May 20, 1985. She claimed that she experienced an injury to her wrist on or about May 25,1985. She was required to use an air gun at an upward angle which required seventy-five to eighty repetitions per hour. On the second day in June 1985 as the pain progressed, Hayes sought treatment from Dr. Del, the plant physician. The claimant asserted that after being treated by Dr. Del with pain pills, ice packs, and heat treatments, he informed her he would be unable to continue her treatment as it was a personal injury unrelated to work.

After being denied treatment through General Motors, Hayes sought independent medical treatment. Subsequently she saw twenty-eight doctors in association with her wrist injury, neck and upper arm pain, and tension headaches. Hayes continued to work until January 1987 when General Motors laid her off. Hayes has not worked since that time.

Hayes filed a claim for compensation claiming that while in the course and scope of her employment, and through repeatedly putting on transmission cable she incurred an occupational disease. In the findings of fact and conclusions of law the administrative law judge (hereinafter ALJ) found that Hayes “sustained some sort of sprain or strain to her right wrist which ... resulted in permanent partial disability of 10% of the right hand at the wrist,” and awarded her a total payment of $2,505.83. He also found that not all the problems claimed by Hayes were related to her work injury, and, accordingly, denied the medical expenses incurred by Hayes. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission upheld this award and Hayes filed this appeal.

The question presented on appeal is whether the finding that Hayes sustained a 10% permanent partial disability of the right hand by the ALJ and subsequently upheld by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission is supported by the weight of the evidence. It is the position of Hayes that the award is insufficient and is not supported by the facts found by the commission.

Our review is limited to questions of law. § 287.495 RSMo 1986. We must affirm the commission’s decision if, after a review of the entire record in the light most favorable to the finding, we believe the award is supported by competent and substantial evidence. Saidawi v. Giovanni’s Little Place, 805 S.W.2d 180 (Mo.App.1990); French v. Ford Motor Co., 720 S.W.2d 24, 26 (Mo.App.1986). In making this determination, evidence which might support findings different from those found by the commission must be disregarded. Saidawi, supra, 805 S.W.2d at 183; Nelson v. Consolidated Housing Development and Management Co., Inc., 750 S.W.2d 144, 148 (Mo.App.1988).

[64]*64It is well settled that questions of fact are for the commission. This court may not substitute our judgment on evidence for that of the commission’s, even if the evidence could support a contrary finding. Matthews v. Roadway Express, 660 S.W.2d 768, 769 (Mo.App.1983). The weight to be given evidence rests with the commission and it alone determines the credibility of witnesses. Katzenberger, 690 S.W.2d 473, 475 (Mo.App.1985). Where competent evidence is conflicting, resolution is for the commission and its choice is binding upon this court. Brown v. Hillman Convalescent Center, 776 S.W.2d 47, 49 (Mo.App. 1989).

General Motors offered in evidence the deposition of Dr. Ralph Graff (hereinafter Graff). He testified that he was a general surgeon and had examined Hayes on May 5,1987. He further testified to the medical history of Hayes. This medical history revealed that on May 20, 1985, Hayes started working at General Motors. Her job required repetitive and twisting motions of her right wrist. Hayes soon developed pain in her wrist which was progressive. Hayes did not seek medical treatment immediately but because of her progressive symptoms she was seen by the company doctor. No treatment was administered by Dr. Del. On December 3, 1985, Hayes was seen at the County Hospital. Hayes showed Graff reports from her visit to County Hospital in which no abnormal findings were described. Her medical history revealed that she was subsequently seen by a chiropractor who referred her to a Dr. Paul Weks, (hereinafter Weks), who also evaluated her wrist. Weks’s physical examination of claimant, the x-ray examination and orthoscopic examination of the wrist were also non-revealing. Hayes was subsequently seen by Dr. Hubert Gaskin, an internist, who initiated an extensive work-up, which included referrals to multiple doctors. During these examinations Hayes complained of pain in her head, her legs, and her entire right upper extremity. A diagnosis of thoracic outlet syndrome was entertained, but two doctors who examined her concluded that she did not have thoracic outlet syndrome. Hayes brought with her multiple medical records. Graff scanned these records and found the only abnormal test to be an abnormal sedimentation rate. Graff explained that a sedimentation rate is a test where anticoagulat-ed blood is allowed to settle, and the cells will settle to the bottom. The test measures the rate the blood settles. Graff testified that the test is very non-specific. He stated that it indicates that there is an abnormal sedimentation rate which indicates a disease process, but that the test is very ineffective in indicating what the disease process is. Graff further testified that all of Hayes’s other examinations, a CT scan and such, were within normal limits. The medical report showed a nerve condition study and an EMG carried out at Jewish Hospital on December 26, 1986, and was also negative. At this time Hayes complained of pain and an inability to properly raise her right extremity and has been unable to work since being laid off at General Motors.

Dr. Graff also conducted a physical examination of Hayes. Graff found the examination of her head was not remarkable, that is, there were no bumps, lumps, or abnormalities of her head. Examination of neck revealed a normal range of motion. He found that Hayes exhibited normal flex-ion, extension, lateral bending, and lateral rotation.

Dr. Graff’s examination of Hayes’s shoulders revealed a normal range of motion. He found the forward elevation, backward elevation, abduction, adduction, internal rotation, and external rotation of both shoulders to be normal. He found that these motions were carried out slowly and cautiously at the right shoulder but that the magnitude of the motions were normal. Dr. Graff could not detect any areas of tenderness in her upper right extremity.

Dr. Graff found the motion was normal at the elbows, the wrists, the joints of the fingers, thumbs, and both hands. The deep tendon reflexes were normal at both elbows and wrists. However, Dr.

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

Related

Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection
121 S.W.3d 220 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
813 S.W.2d 62, 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 949, 1991 WL 104450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-general-motors-moctapp-1991.