GEORGE E DANIELS, Applicant

COUNTY OF TAYLOR, Employer

WAUSAU BUSINESS INS CO, Insurer

The applicant submitted a petition for commission review alleging error in the administrative law judge's Findings and Order issued in this matter on April 27, 2007. On November 15, 2007, the commission issued an order for the taking of additional medical evidence, which has now been submitted. Briefs were submitted by the parties, including a brief from the applicant submitted subsequent to receipt of the additional medical evidence. At issue are whether or not the applicant sustained a work-related cerebral aneurysm rupture on May 7, 2003, and if so, what are the nature and extent of disability and liability for medical expense.

The commission has carefully reviewed the entire record in this matter, and considered the positions of the parties. Based on its review, the commission adopts the findings of the administrative law judge made in her decision of April 7, 2007, and affirms the dismissal of the application. The commission's decision also took into account the additional medical evidence submitted in the form of an independent medical opinion from Dr. Thomas R. Berensten. Accordingly, the commission makes the following:

Dated and mailed October 27, 2008
daniege2.wpr : 185 : 8 ND § 3.37

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairperson

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

The commission found Kim Kasperek's testimony concerning the conversation she had with the applicant on May 7, 2003, to be credible. As noted by the administrative law judge in her decision, it is clear that the applicant was concerned with proposed changes in the jail staffing schedule. Kasperek noted that the applicant expressed suspicion to her that there was "a conspiracy to get him off the schedule." This upset Kasperek and caused her to cry, because the applicant's suspicion was unfounded, and because she had long considered the applicant to be her friend. Kasperek discussed the new scheduling proposal with the applicant, assured him that he would have opportunities to pick up work shifts, and then the meeting ended with the applicant telling her that he "felt better" about the matter. At that time, Kasperek did not see any sign that the applicant was upset. The videotape evidence supports Kasperek's description.

The applicant's co-worker, Nancy Mayer, testified that the applicant seemed "upset" about the scheduling when she discussed the matter with him after he had left Kasperek's office. The applicant voiced concern to Mayer that he had made Kasperek cry. Nevertheless, the applicant and Mayer also spent time discussing what they would eat for their upcoming dinner. Despite Mayer's description of the applicant as being "upset," the totality of her testimony leads to the inference that the applicant calmly discussed this ongoing work matter with her, and was not under significant stress. Kasperek's testimony leads to the inference that the applicant experienced minimal stress during his conversation with her. The determinative question is whether or not such minimal stress was causative of the applicant's ruptured cerebral aneurism.

In addition to the medical opinions of Dr. Haase and Dr. Weissman, the commission had the benefit of Dr. Berensten's medical opinion, secured as additional evidence. Dr. Berenstein indicated that he had reviewed the applicant's medical records and Kasperek's testimony, and did not believe that stress in the applicant's workplace was in any way related to the rupture of his cerebral aneurism. Dr. Berensten credibly opined that the aneurism was preexisting, and that there was no evidence of raised blood pressure prior to the rupture of the aneurism. Dr. Berensten also made what the commission believes was likely an overly-broad statement, to the effect that there is no supporting evidence in the medical literature that episodes of stress are causative of cerebral aneurismal ruptures. Dr. Berensten's reference to blood pressure leads to the inference that in instances in which there is stress severe enough to substantially elevate an individual's blood pressure, such stress could be causative of an aneurismal rupture. However, given the minimal stress to which the applicant was exposed at work on May 7, 2003, the commission finds credible Dr. Berensten's opinion that this workplace stress was not in any way related to the rupture of the applicant's cerebral aneurism.

The applicant points to that particular portion of Dr. Weissman's opinion that might also be seen as overly-broad and categorical. At that point in his opinion, Dr. Weissman stated that attempting to link an aneurismal rupture to work-related stress is not an appropriate claim for worker's compensation. As just noted, it is inferred that severe stress could cause a significant increase in blood pressure, which in turn could be a substantial causative factor in an aneurismal rupture. However, it is clear from Dr. Weissman's and Dr. Berensten's opinions that they did review the individual circumstances of the applicant's workplace exposure on May 7, 2003, and credibly concluded that this exposure was not a causative factor in the applicant's aneurismal rupture. Dr. Weissman credibly cited the applicant's preexisting risk factors that point to a spontaneous rupture. These include the fact that the applicant's father succumbed to an aneurismal rupture at age 63, the applicant's vasculopathic disease, his history of heavy smoking, and his hypertension. If the applicant had presented a credible case of work-related stress severe enough to have caused a significant elevation in his blood pressure, as postulated by Dr. Haase in his WKC-16-B, then Dr. Haase's opinion might have been accepted. However, the credible evidence supports the inference that the applicant's work-related stress on May 7, 2003, did not reach that level of severity.

cc:
Attorney Anne E. Schmiege
Attorney Jessica L. Almazar

Appealed to Circuit Court.

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

uploaded 2008/10/31