Commission modifies scope of a 230 week TTD award in disputed back case

 Claimant in 2008 reports he fell backwards about 4 feet while handling a crowbar, resulting in back and psych injuries in a claim for PTD benefits. 

The ALJ awarded more than $300,000 in benefits and relied upon opinions of Dr. Fonn that claimant's back surgery was necesary and gave less credit the neurosurgeons who reached a different conclusion becuase they had incomplete medical reocrds.  In addition, claimant alleged both prior and new psych injuries.  the ALJ awarded 25% of the back, 10% for psych and PTD against the second injury fund. The attorney fee was 15%.

The Commission reduced some of the TTD noting a failure to proof that claimant was engaged in a rehabilitative process and  that another doctor had taken claimant off work for pre-existing conditions. Claimant asserted he was entitled to benefits becuse the employer disputed causation..

The dissent would have denied benefits on failure to prove injury by accident or that the surgery, 4 years post-njury,  flowed from the accident based on objective findings.  

In 2008 claimant was off work due to a prior accident. In 2009 claimant was off work by Dr. Fonn due to back fusion for a prior motorcycle accident.   There was a gap in treatment for two years, and then Dr. Fonn performed additional back surgery in August 2012 which he related to the accident and kept him off work until June 2014.  Dr. Sky performed in expert exam in 2018, 10 years after the accident, and conceded his plan of care was the same type of care claimant had recieved prior to the accident.   

William Wilson v Noranda  Inj. No. 08-120003

Release Date:  Jan 27, 2025   2-1 affirm   

ALJ Young

Attorneys:  Butler, Brueggman, Lindsey

Experts: Fonn, Woitschek, Kavers, Sky; Bernardi, Kitchens 

Claimant fails to prove risk source from fall in her own home

 LaDonna Johnson v OATs

Inj. No.  23-047500  

Release Date:  Jan 7, 2025

The Commission in a 2-1 decision reverses an award of approximately $70,000 in benefits, and finds the claimant van driver failed to prove injury by accident in course and scope of her employment based on an equal exposure defense when claimant sustained injuries in her own home to retrieve work-related supplies and slipped in her own kitchen and claims walking outside in water to inspect the van made her shoes wet and slippery.


ALJ Elmer awarded benefits and found a work related risk caused claimant to be outside in the rain, standing in wet grass, that lead her to fall. She argued, among other factors, that driving her private car does not require her to step in grass, and that in private life she does not have to be exposed to the rain and that cleaning the van was a benefit to the employer.