Court of Appeals Affirms Running Healing Period Award

In Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Teah, No. 15-1776 (April 27, 2016), the Court of Appeals addressed a situation where claimant developed a shoulder injury as a result of repetitive work activities at Tyson. Claimant was found to have reached maximum medical improvement, but continued to complain of shoulder problems.  Dr. Adams concluded that claimant had chronic calcific tendinitis, but not evidence of a rotator cuff tear.   He found that work activities had aggravated her condition.  He found that work had accelerated her condition, but also found that no surgery was currently needed but that a surgery in the future would not be work-related.  Tyson denied liability.

Claimant was asked to sign a non-work leave of absence.  She refused and was eventually terminated. At hearing, the agency concluded that claimant had demonstrated that she had a compensable injury and awarded a  running healing period.  Defendants appealed, claiming that if Dr. Adams' opinions were rejected, there was no additional expert medical evidence to support the commissioner's findings.  The Court of Appeals agreed with the commissioner and district court that it was premature to determine that claimant had a permanent healing period because she had not yet received all the medical treatment appropriate for her injury.  The court finds that Dr. Adams' opinions were not rejected but were instead interpreted by the commissioner and that interpretation was supported by substantial evidence.