Tuesday, December 19, 2017

Pro se claim fails in part without expert evidence

Claimant, pro se,  caught her hair in conveyor rollers while crawling under machinery  and claims hair was pulled from her head.  She complained of persistent "explosions" in her head which her doctor told her occurred because her head was "re-attaching."  She had additional treatment in pain management for her back about 9 months after the accident which she believes is related.
Zerwig v Verallia/St. Gobain, Inc. (Travelers), Inj.  No. 13-022178 ,  D/A 4-2-2013   (decided 12/17/2017)

The ALJ denied the claim concerning the back based on the lack of expert opinion, the lack of admissible medical records,  and disabling symptoms occurred 9 months later.  The ALJ awarded 2% BAW and found testimony of hair loss and minor head contusion within the scope of lay testimony. 

The claimant appealed and sought to introduce additional evidence.  The motion to submit additional evidence did not meet the standards of 8 CSR 20-3.030(2)  as the records she sought to introduce were not newly discovered evidence.  The Commission found no reversible error on claimant's allegations that she did not receive a fair trial, that the judge would not let her offer evidence, and the judge "badgered" her, among other alleged errors.

Claimant had attempted to offer exhibits which did not comply with 287.140.7 or 287.210. The claimant objected that she was unable to read from her own narrative opinion because of "well-taken" objections by the employer.

ALJ Denigan