MATTHEW KOHLBECK, Applicant

INTERSTATE SAWING CO INC, Employer

CINCINNATI INDEMNITY CO, Insurer

An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Worker's Compensation Division of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.

The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the ALJ, and it adopts the findings and order in that decision as its own.

The findings and order of the administrative law judge are affirmed.

Dated and mailed January 5, 2007
kohlbem . wsd : 101 : 1  ND § 3.31

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner

Robert Glaser, Commissioner

The applicant alleges disability from an injury he sustained at work on August 29, 2000. On that day, the applicant was assigned work drilling holes through concrete in a street in the City of Milwaukee. In performing this job, the applicant raised and lowered the drill bit with a threaded rod inserted into the drill machine. It was not necessary to maintain pressure on the control rod to operate the drill once the drill bit was lowered.

As the drill was operating on August 29, 2000, the applicant saw a blue flash, followed by a sudden explosion. The drill had struck a 2,200 volt electrical power line. The applicant testified he was pretty sure he was holding the control rod at the time (February 2006 transcript, page 25-26.) He could not remember which hand was holding the rod, but he told a doctor during treatment it was his left. He testified he was thrown about ten feet and landed flat on his back.

Jeff Rindt, an equipment operator for another construction company, was a block away from the applicant at the time. Mr. Rindt testified:

"...as we were working, I noticed him move quick at one time, and then for a while he didn't  --  he wasn't moving down the street like he should have been because he was moving along pretty good..."

November 2005 transcript, page 66. Mr. Rindt provided more detail on cross examination:

"He was coring and he just kind of moved quick. I don't know  --  At that time I don't know if there was bees or something that he was swatting away or what, but then he walked around his truck for a while. And where he was, it should have only been a real thin core because it was in an alley approach... And he was there for quite a while. So we went down  --  I walked down to see if he was having a problem because he should have been onto the next hole already.

November 2005 transcript, page 69. Mr. Rindt went on to describe the applicant as appearing to be kind of jumping back for a split second. When Mr. Rindt spoke with the applicant:

"...He looked all right. He seemed a little frazzled because he said he had gotten a shock off the machine."

Personnel from the electric company arrived and suggested the applicant go to a hospital and seek treatment. He declined, and did not seek treatment until a month after the incident on September 27, 2000. When the applicant treated, he told his doctors he had drilled through a 22,000 volt line and received a shock that threw him seven to ten feet in the air. The applicant complained of numerous symptoms including abdominal pain, neck pain, tingling and weakness in the arms, fatigue, paresthesia, cold intolerance, and a feeling of "fuzziness" or "spaciness" associated with decreased concentration and memory.

The applicant's medical expert, Dr. Fink said he was functioning in the average range of intellectual ability, but with significant memory impairment and inefficiencies of attention/concentration. Dr. Fink opined the applicant had significant interference effects when new information was introduced, and comparative mild concentration/attention difficulties. The doctor noted his personality profile is marked by significant somatic preoccupations and a chronic major depressive disorder of at least mild severity.

The doctor concluded:

"Cognitive and personality profiles similar to his have been observed as sequelae of significant electrical exposure injuries. In considering the impact on his capacity to return to work, both the cognitive and psychiatric problems currently would stand as obstacles toward successful return to work. In spite of his significant difficulties, he appears to remain extremely motivated to return to work, as much of his identity was apparently invested into his sense of himself as a hard worker."

Dr. Fink recommended further treatment with a neurologist and a psychiatrist, and that the applicant should be on disability status. He completed a form practitioner's report stating that the incident of August 29, 2000 directly caused the applicant's disability.

The applicant also submitted a practitioner's report from Dr. Van Steen who opined the applicant's August 29, 2000 work injury directly caused disability. He added a narrative in which he agreed the applicant was sincere in his belief that his various physical complaints were real to him, that there was no indication he was malingering, and that he wanted to return to work. He agreed that the applicant "reported sensations of internal trembling, noxious breath, brain crunches, numbness of his face which were temporarily connected to his work incident of August 29, 2000."

The insurer retained Lawrence Frazin, M.D., whose October 7, 2003 report is at exhibit 4. After summarizing the medical treatment notes, Dr. Frazin noted the serious symptoms that could follow an electrical shock of the magnitude the applicant asserts occurred. He added:

"It is my understanding that this was an unwitnessed event. I also find it hard to accept that, if this type of electrical shock occurred, that the patient did not seek medical care, let alone return to work and did not mention the accident for one month. Within a month's time any electrical burns or mild necrosis could have resolved. His complaints by and large are subjective somatic complaints with persistent normal neurological examinations. He also has cervical spondylosis which might very well be contributing to some of the discomfort in his neck and shoulder, as well as some of the tingling in his arms...."

In addition, there is the report of Kerry Hamsher, Ph.D., a neurophysiologist. Dr. Kerry's August 15, 2005 report is at exhibit 5. He commented that while there was evidence the drill struck the power line, there was no evidence of an electrical injury though there was still the possibility of an electric shock. The doctor felt a pre-existing or "old" injury to the back and upper neck accounted for some of the neurological findings, and that there was no evidence of brain injury due to the electrical insult. He thought there was evidence of nondegenerative changes in the brain with signs of small vessel cerebrovascular disease, but not an electrical injury. Dr. Hasher diagnosed a delusional disorder, and concluded to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the applicant's complaints and condition were not work related, either from the shock injury or otherwise.

The ALJ found for the respondent, finding the applicant suffered no real injury from the August 29, 2000 incident at all. He credited the opinion of the applicant's expert on electricity, Dr. Anderson, that virtually all of the electrical charge would have discharged directly through the machine underground and the applicant received only a minor amount of energy through the handle. The ALJ noted that the applicant was not consistent on whether he was holding the handle. The ALJ concluded that the applicant had at most a startle response following the August 29, 2000 incident, noting the fact the applicant did not treat for a month, that there were lengthy gaps in treatment, and that Mr. Rindt's testimony about the injury was most consistent with a startle response. A burn or other sign of trauma, the ALJ felt, would likely have occurred had in fact there been a major electrical charge. He discredited the applicant's testimony that he was thrown ten feet in the air.

The commission agrees with ALJ's decision. As the ALJ noted, the applicant has not been consistent about whether he was actually holding the threaded control rod when the drill struck the power line. He refused treatment on the date of injury, and did not treat for nearly a month thereafter, despite his testimony that he experienced symptoms -- including several days of nausea -- immediately after the event. The applicant was able to work until June 2001 -- his employer testified he was still a good, profitable worker -- until he was discharged following an unrelated incident with a dispatcher in June 2001. Dr. Van Steen released the applicant to work without restrictions in March 2002. Consulting doctor Hammeke stated that there was no clear evidence of concussion or neurocognitive sequellae from the electroshock of August 29, 2000.

The applicant also told his doctors, including Drs. Fink and Van Steen, that he was thrown ten feet in the air after striking the power line. In fact, the commission concludes the applicant had at most a startle reaction as described by Mr. Rindt. The inconsistency on this point is material, and consequently compromises the expert opinions of Drs. Fink and Van Steen. In short, after consulting with the presiding ALJ concerning the applicant's credibility and demeanor, the commission concludes the applicant has failed to establish any disability or need for treatment from the incident of August 29, 2000.

cc:
Attorney Kathleen E. Hume
Attorney Bonni D. Fredrick

[ Search Decisions ] - [ WC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]

uploaded 2007/01/29