 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ward v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board11/13/2002
Ginger Ward (Claimant) appeals from an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirming the decision of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) denying her reinstatement petition finding that the loss of one-quarter inch of Claimant's thumb as a result of a work-related injury did not constitute a substantial loss of one-half of the thumb for compensation purposes pursuant to Section 306(c)(14) of the Workers' Compensation Act.
On September 11, 1998, Claimant, while working for Interforest Corporation (Employer) as a showroom helper, sustained a crush injury to her right thumb upon closing showroom doors. As a result of her work-related injury, Claimant had intermittent periods of disability, including surgery, where a portion of the bone of her thumb was removed. Because Claimant returned to work for Employer and subsequently began working as a laborer for J & L Specialty Steel, her benefits were suspended in April 1999.
Alleging that her work-related injury had resolved itself into a loss of use of one-half of her right thumb for all practical intents and purposes, Claimant filed a reinstatement petition seeking specific loss benefits under Section 306(c)(14) of the Act which allows recovery when any substantial part of the thumb is amputated. Employer filed an answer to Claimant's petition denying all material allegations contained therein and hearings before the WCJ then ensued.
Before the WCJ, Claimant testified that she experienced some numbness in the tip of her right thumb, and although she was able to function with it, she was using it differently since the injury. She acknowledged that since she began working as a laborer for J & L Specialty Steel, she had not missed a day of work as a result of her injury and was able to perform all job functions. Claimant further acknowledged that the only task of daily living that she was unable to perform was putting on necklaces.
Claimant also presented the medical report of Eric Minde, M.D. (Dr. Minde) who, after examining Claimant's right thumb, characterized it as deformed, with a bulbous appearance and thick nail. Dr. Minde described Claimant's use of her thumb as awkward and noted that Claimant had deficiencies in sensation, anatomic dimension, function and motion. Based upon his examination of Claimant and his review of her medical records, Dr. Minde opined that Claimant had lost the use of one-half of her right thumb for all practical intents and purposes as a result of her work-related injury and further opined that this loss was permanent.
In opposition, Employer presented the testimony of James L. Cosgrove, M.D. (Dr. Cosgrove), who after examining Claimant, described her right thumb as being slightly shorter than her left thumb by one-quarter inch, with a slight deformity in the nail bed, distal tip and distal nail tip. Dr. Cosgrove testified that Claimant's pinch measurements and grip strength were essentially normal, the vast majority of sensation in Claimant's thumb was unimpaired and her thumb was a fully functioning digit. Dr. Cosgrove stated that he could find no substantial loss in Claimant's right thumb which would have any effect on her daily activities or vocational endeavors, and noted that the only limitation evident was a slightly shorter digit with a slight decrease in sensation at the distal tip.
Determining that Claimant's thumb was fully functional but for some minor limitations, the WCJ denied Claimant's reinstatement petition. The WCJ determined that the credible testimony of Dr. Cosgrove, as well as Claimant's own testimony that she experienced minimal problems with her right thumb and was able to perform her daily job functions
Page 1 2 3 4 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|