Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Foley

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY AND LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION v. JEFFREY FOLEY

Record No. 1167-21-3

Court of Appeals of Virginia

May 3, 2022

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION

Matthew J. Griffin (Lucas & Kite, PLC, on brief), for appellants.

Bradford M. Young (HammondTownsend, PLC, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Russell, Friedman and Callins Argued at Salem, Virginia

MEMORANDUM OPINION ^[*]

WESLEY G. RUSSELL, JR., JUDGE

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and its insurer (collectively "employer") appeal a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission granting Jeffrey Foley an award for "medical benefits . . . causally related to the claimant's May 8, 2020 left knee sprain and left knee injury, including the requested left knee total knee replacement surgery." Finding no error, we affirm the decision of the Commission.

BACKGROUND

"On appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission, the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence are viewed in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below." Anderson v. Anderson, 65 Va.App. 354, 361 (2015) (quoting Artis v. Ottenberg's Bakers, Inc., 45 Va.App 72, 83 (2005) (en banc)).

On May 8, 2020, claimant sustained an injury to his left knee while he was working as an electrician in the "maintenance group" for employer. At the time of the accident claimant was working in an area covered in "grease, water, and hydraulic fluid." As claimant stepped across the machine where he was working, his left foot slipped, turned sideways, and jammed. Claimant reported his injury to employer that day and continued working his regular job duties. During his consultation with a nurse that day, claimant exhibited full range of motion with mild pain in his left knee.

Claimant returned to the nurse the next day, reporting that he could walk, ride a bike, and bend his left knee with "no issues." Claimant did state he had slight pain in his left knee "when climbing [a] ladder but nothing he would like followed up on at this time." The nurse advised claimant that he could continue working his regular job duties.

On or about June 21, 2020, claimant experienced additional left knee issues when he was "in an awkward stance performing some maintenance" on another machine for employer. Claimant reported this injury to employer when he returned to his next scheduled shift. No diagnostic studies or imaging were performed on claimant's left knee at that time.

A few days later, claimant experienced additional issues with his left knee when he was walking to his mailbox at home. At that time, claimant was "just walking through the yard. Didn't step in a hole. Didn't step on a stick. I swear I felt it tear and I heard a pop and then that started a really bad day." Claimant advised the nurse that day that his left knee had "not seemed to get any better over the last few weeks and then today it just gave out on him and felt like something 'detached.'" Claimant also went to the emergency room that day, reporting that he had "felt a pop on the medial left knee and immediate intense pain." Claimant advised the doctor in the emergency room that he had injured his left knee "several months" earlier but had been "able to ambulate and climb stairs with a brace." X-rays showed no acute bony abnormality. Claimant did not return to work the following day because "the pain was too great."

Claimant began treatment with his treating physician, Dr. Norris, on or about July 9, 2020. Claimant informed Dr. Norris that he had sustained a "twisting injury" to his left knee on May 8, 2020, and that his left knee was "initially swollen and painful but this has started to improve." Claimant also reported issues of stability, as well as "several episodes of twisting. He report[ed] a 'pop' with the last twisting episode." Dr. Norris administered a cortisone injection, placed claimant under light-duty restrictions, and recommended an MRI.

The MRI demonstrated a "meniscal root tear on the medial side . . . with moderate to severe osteoarthritis bicompartmental." Upon review of the MRI results, Dr. Norris recommended conservative treatment "for a couple more years then he would be an excellent candidate for knee replacement surgery." Notably, Dr. Norris also indicated that claimant clearly remembered "a 'pop' when this first happened."

In August 2020, Dr. Norris completed a medical questionnaire prepared by employer. There, Dr. Norris stated that claimant's May 8, 2020 work accident was not the "primary cause" of claimant's left knee osteoarthritis. When asked to provide a specific diagnosis related to claimant's May 8, 2020 work accident, Dr. Norris stated that claimant "suffered a meniscus root tear which significantly increased the stress on the [medial] compartment and aggravated the knee arthritis." Dr. Norris further explained that claimant's need for a total knee replacement was related to the May 8, 2020 work accident because the accident was an "[a]ggravation of [claimant's] pre-existing condition that was previously not causing symptoms or functional impairment."

In November 2020, claimant saw Dr. Torre for an independent medical evaluation (IME) arranged by employer. According to claimant, the IME lasted fifteen to twenty minutes.

Dr. Torre diagnosed claimant's injury as a "sprain of the left knee superimposed on underlying osteoarthritis" and concluded that "[t]here are no current objective findings of an acute sprain, as the sprain component ha[d] resolved." Dr. Torre also stated that claimant's ongoing symptoms were consistent with the "objective evidence of osteoarthritis of the knee, not caused by the accident." He further opined that "[w]hile the sprain caused symptoms in the arthritic medial compartment, there is no evidence that the sprain caused any material, structural or physiologic change in the knee arthritis or its natural long-term history." As for the medial meniscus tear demonstrated by claimant's MRI, Dr. Torre stated that such a tear is "an expected component of the arthritic features of a knee." Dr. Torre recommended a treatment plan consisting of "conversative management of the underlying arthritis . . . . No[] further treatment for the knee sprain is necessary." Dr. Torre also opined that a "[t]otal knee replacement is not appropriate nor medically necessary at this time as treatment for a knee sprain, irrespective of the underlying arthritis."

In January 2021, after no significant progress in claimant's condition, Dr. Norris recommended a "total knee arthroplasty to restore mechanical alignment and to alleviate pain and restore function to his knee." Dr. Norris also responded to a medical questionnaire prepared by claimant's counsel. In the questionnaire, Dr. Norris opined that claimant's "meniscal root tear [was] likely due to [claimant's May 8, 2020] injury" and that claimant's "arthritis [was] exacerbated by [claimant's May 8, 2020] injury." Dr. Norris also provided a treatment plan consisting of a "total knee replacement, left knee" followed by physical therapy.

Dr. Norris provided another written opinion in March 2021, in which he stated that "[t]he arthritis note[d] on MRI would have likely pre-dated the injury and may have been aggravated by the work injury but not caused by the work injury." Dr. Norris also suggested that claimant's "twisting injury at work is an injury mechanism that can lead to meniscal tears of the knee and would be consistent with his described injury course and symptoms." With regard to the incident involving claimant walking to his home mailbox, Dr. Norris did "not have an opinion as to the extent that this other injury may have compounded the reported work injury."

At the evidentiary hearing on April 13, 2021, employer stipulated that claimant suffered a compensable left knee sprain on May 8, 2020. Employer challenged the extent of claimant's disability as related to the work accident and argued that "the request for specific medical treatment that has been claimed [was] not causally related to the work injury itself." Employer also defended the claim on grounds that claimant's May 8, 2020 work injury had resolved, "consistent with the opinion expressed by Dr. Torre."

Claimant testified at the hearing that his left knee condition never improved after May 8, 2020. He acknowledged that he had returned to work, but he stated that he was "uncomfortable" executing his duties. Medical records and the questionnaire responses of both Dr. Norris and Dr. Torre were entered into evidence.

After considering the evidence, the deputy commissioner issued a decision finding that claimant did not prove that the requested medical treatment was causally related to the work accident. The deputy commissioner reasoned that, although claimant had suffered a knee sprain as a result of the May 8, 2020 work accident, "it was not until the claimant was walking in his yard on June 28, 2020 that he felt a pop and had significant pain in his left knee." The deputy commissioner afforded the opinions of Dr. Torre greater weight than those of the treating physician, Dr. Norris, explaining that Dr. Norris' opinions were "equivocal and based on an inaccurate history." Based on these findings, the deputy commissioner limited claimant's award of medical benefits to the period from the May 8, 2020 work accident to November 19, 2020, the date of Dr. Torre's IME report.^[1]

Claimant requested full Commission review of the deputy commissioner's opinion; he asserted that the deputy commissioner erred in finding that the impairment he suffered from his May 8, 2020 work accident "did not extend beyond November 19, 2020" and that the work accident "played no role in [claimant's] need for left knee...