File Number: 5018759
Decision Type: Arbitration
Click here to open a PDF version of this decision.

Click here to search for all decisions related to file number 5018759.

:

JOAN L. ROBERTS, :

:

Claimant, :

:

vs. :

: File No. 5018759

ALFA GOMMA AMERICA, INC., :

: A R B I T R A T I O N

Employer, :

: D E C I S I O N

and :

:

THE ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE

COMPANY OF AMERICA, :

:

Insurance Carrier, :

Defendants. : Head Note No.: 1400, 1800, 1803

______________________________________________________________________

This is a proceeding in arbitration that was initiated when claimant, Joan Roberts, filed her original notice and petition on April 29, 2006 with the Iowa Division of Workers’ Compensation. She alleged she sustained a work-related injury on approximately February 1, 2006 while she was in the employ of her employer, Alfa Gomma America, Inc., defendant. Claimant alleged the injury was in the nature of a cumulative trauma.


For purposes of workers’ compensation, Alfa Gomma America, Inc. is insured by Accident Fund Insurance Company of America, Inc., defendant. Defendants filed their answer on May 16, 2006. They denied the occurrence of the work injury on the date alleged.


The hearing administrator set the case for a backup hearing in Burlington, Iowa, on April 19, 2007 at 3:00 p.m. The hearing took place as scheduled.


The undersigned appointed Ms. Joni Knapp as the certified shorthand reporter. She is the official custodian of the records and notes.


The parties offered exhibits. Claimant offered exhibits marked 1-16. Defendants offered exhibits marked A-M. All proffered exhibits were admitted as evidence in the case.


Claimant testified on her own behalf. Mr. Matt Brakeville, Operations Manager, testified on behalf of defendants.

1.     There was the existence of an employer-employee relationship at the time of the alleged injury;


2.     At the time of the alleged injury, the correct weekly benefit rate was $334.02 per week;


3.     Medical benefits are not at issue;


4.     The parties are able to agree to the allowable costs involved to litigate the claim.

The issues presented by the parties were:


1.     Whether claimant sustained a work-related injury on February 1, 2006;


2.     Whether the alleged work injury is the cause of temporary and/or permanent partial disability;


3.     Whether claimant is entitled to temporary total or healing period benefits;


4.     Whether claimant is entitled to healing period benefits; and


5.     Whether claimant is entitled to the payment of an independent medical examination and report pursuant to Iowa Code section 85.39.

This deputy, after hearing the testimony, after judging the credibility of the two witnesses, and after reading the evidence, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:


Claimant is a very pleasant and articulate single woman with one minor child. She shares custody of her child with the child’s father. Claimant is right hand dominant. She holds an Associate of Arts degree in computer science from Hocking Technical College in Nelsonville, Ohio. Claimant described herself as an above average student. She reported she was very comfortable with computers. Claimant appeared intelligent with the ability to cope in new learning situations. The undersigned found claimant to be a credible witness even though she exaggerated the weight of the hoses she lifted.


Previously, claimant worked at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics as a Secretary II in the Heart Care Clinic. She helped design certain computer systems for General Electric. At G.E. claimant received on-the-job training in systems design. She earned her highest level of pay at G.E. At the time claimant voluntarily terminated from G.E., she was earning $18.96 per hour.


Claimant also worked as a legal secretary for a number of years. She possessed a vast knowledge of Microsoft Windows. Her prior jobs were very responsible positions.


Claimant commenced her employment with defendant-employer on November 15, 2004. She successfully completed a pre-employment physical before she was hired as the factory quality manager. The company physician determined claimant was fit for duty. Claimant’s job was in the Quality Control Department. Accuracy and an ability to attend to details were requirements for the job. Claimant fit those qualifications with her previous work experience.


The evidence established claimant had to test various industrial hoses. The lightest hose weighed less than one-half pound. The average hose weighed 3 to 4 pounds. The heaviest hoses weighed from 8 to 15 pounds. No hoses weighed 20 to 22 pounds. The length of the hoses varied also. The longest hose was approximately 6 feet in length. The longer hoses were cumbersome and difficult to manipulate because of the hoses’ length and weight.


A video presentation, (defendants’ exhibit H) of the testing processes was played during the hearing. Mr. Brakeville testified he produced the video and he tried to show an accurate description of the job functions. However, claimant was not taped performing the activities. A tall thin male worker was demonstrating the work activities. Mr. Brakeville described claimant’s duties as other than heavy work but he said the work could be deemed repetitive. Mr. Brakeville acknowledged claimant had to lift boxes but he described them as small boxes.


The video illustrated the multiple testing applications and the various inspections that were performed on the hoses. Some hoses required the worker to wash the hoses three times each. Other hoses required the worker to wash the hoses six times each. Mr. Brakeville testified that during “an average week”, claimant would run three separate tests per week.


Very detailed records for the hoses were maintained by the workers. The data was provided in exhibit L. Mr. Brakeville testified the summary of data provided in exhibit L was accurate. Claimant took issue with exhibit L. She maintained the data was inaccurate. She said the number of tests she performed per week was not correct.


Claimant viewed exhibit H during the course of the hearing. She testified there were weeks when she tested 11 separate hoses in a one week period. Claimant disagreed strongly with the video depiction that was presented. She testified the video did not depict all of the duties she performed while she was an employee of defendant. She also testified the manner with which the tall male worker on the video was washing a long hose was not the same way she had managed the task. Because claimant was only 5 feet 5 inches tall, she had to vary the manner with which she handled the 6 foot hoses.


In her deposition, claimant testified she spent one hour per day performing data entry duties. During the rest of her time, she testified she was engaged in testing activities, checking parts and lifting some boxes.


During her hearing, claimant testified she checked many parts that were very small in size. She testified that when she had to test the longest hoses, she had to carry the hoses on her left shoulder and over her left arm. She complained she often had to hold the long hoses over her head. Claimant testified the overhead activities placed pressure on her left shoulder. Claimant testified she would feel strain when she carried the long hoses. She maintained her work was repetitive in nature. Claimant reported that while she was employed, she engaged in heavy lifting on a repetitive basis. Claimant stated she had too much work to accomplish during her shift. She emphasized she did nothing outside of the work environment that would cause a problem with her left shoulder.


Currently, claimant is unemployed. She has not worked since she resigned her employment with “Alfa Gomma” on December 6, 2006. She has been unemployed for nearly one and one-half years. According to her testimony, claimant resigned her position because a co-worker was performing her duties and claimant was required to check small parts in lieu of performing her regular duties. Claimant believed she had been assigned too much work. At the time of her resignation, claimant was earning approximately $27,000.00 per year.


There was no good explanation why claimant was unemployed, given the many transferable skills she possessed. Claimant admitted her left shoulder did not prevent her from holding many meaningful positions. At the time of the hearing, she had not availed herself of the free vocational rehabilitation services offered by the Iowa Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. It was found claimant was not especially motivated to secure gainful employment.


On the face of the petition, claimant alleged she sustained a repetitive injury on approximately February 1, 2006. The evidence shows the alleged date of injury should be amended to February 22, 2006. Therefore, the alleged date of injury listed on the petition is amended to conform to the proof. Defendants shall file a new first report of injury for the date of February 22, 2006. The new first report of injury shall be filed within thirty (30) days of the filing of this decision.


The medical evidence showed claimant reported to a physician at the Burlington Area Family Practice Center that she experienced left shoulder pain dating back to February 22, 2006. Jeremy H. Murphy, M.D., treated claimant on March 21, 2006. He found claimant was “just exquisitely tender even to touch the skin on the shoulder or back.” (Exhibit 2, page12) Dr. Murphy ordered x-rays of the left shoulder. (Ex. 2, p. 30) The x-rays were negative. (Ex. 2, p. 30) Dr. Murphy prescribed 800 mg of Ibuprofen. Dr. Murphy also restricted claimant from working until March 27, 2006. Claimant was off work for one week.


On March 27, 2006, claimant returned to the Family Practice Center in Burlington. Aubrey M. Remmers, M.D., is claimant’s regular family practitioner. She examined claimant on this occasion. Dr. Remmers wrote in her clinical notes for the same day:

Lt. shoulder pain. I suspect she may have an overuse injury or musculoskeletal strain of the lt shoulder. I have advised her that she needs to be resting this at work and I have given her a note to not do any lifting at work and to not transport any hose for the next wk to see if the shoulder pain improves. I have also given her an rx for Prednisone 20 mg po bid x3 days. I would like her to rest her shoulder and take the Prednisone over the next wk and return in one wk at which time we will see how she is doing. If she has had some improvement we may need to refer her for PT. Otherwise, may need further tx.

Dr. Remmers returned claimant to work. However, claimant was “not to do any lifting at work and she is not to lift or transport hose.” (Ex. 1, p. 2) Eight days later, claimant returned with persistent left shoulder pain to Dr. Remmers. Dr. Remmers opined:

…I suspect that the shoulder pain is most likely due to an injury or overuse at work. She has been resting the shoulder over the last wk but reports no significant improvement in her pain. The pain is so bad that it is rated at a level 10, is keeping her up at night and she is having trouble getting herself dressed and raising her arm over her head. The Vicodin is not helping with the pain. She is quite upset because her work is claiming that her shoulder pain is due to her pneumonia that is now resolved. No other complaints today.

Dr. Remmers diagnosed claimant with left shoulder tendonitis. (Ex. 2, p. 14) The family physician opined, “I suspect that she may have some tendonitis in the lt shoulder due to overuse. “ (Ex. 2, p.14) Dr. Remmers prescribed Percocet 5/325. She attempted to refer claimant to Greg Hill M.D. Dr. Remmers restricted claimant from working for five days. Claimant was off work until April 10, 2006. This was a period of .714 weeks.


Because claimant reported the injury as work-related, defendants referred claimant to the Great River Medical Center for treatment. The initial appointment occurred on April 6, 2006. Rick Garrels, M.D., examined claimant for her left shoulder pain. The diagnosis provided was “L shoulder pain. Impingement syndrome.” (Ex. 7, p. 293) Claimant was advised to return to the medical center on April 11, 2006, April 17, 2006, and April 25, 2006. (Ex. 7, p. 293) Dr. Garrels prescribed Celebrex and Ultram. (Ex. 7, p. 290) On April 11, 2006, Dr. Garrels injected claimant’s shoulder with cortisone. (Ex. 1, p. 4) Dr. Garrrels ordered physical therapy three times per week for two weeks. (4-25-06) The authorized treating physician indicated the condition was work related. (Ex. 1, p. 5) Claimant was placed on restricted duty. (Ex. 1, p. 5) Dr. Garrels did question the cause of claimant’s left shoulder condition from the time of the initial consultation. (Ex. 1, p. 310)


Claimant returned to Dr. Remmers for her protracted shoulder pain on May 9, 2006. Claimant reported she had pain that radiated from her left shoulder into her neck. She was unable to sleep because of the severe pain she experienced. (Ex. 1, p. 17) Various pain medications were prescribed.


As of May 17, 2006, defendants denied the claim for workers’ compensation benefits. As a result, claimant returned to her family physician, Dr. Remmers for follow up care. Claimant reported her shoulder pain developed over time and there was no specific injury date. (Ex. 2, p. 18) Claimant was returned to work on the following day with restrictions. (Ex. 2, p. 18) The family physician opined:

Lt. shoulder pain. I feel that her lt shoulder pain is due to overuse at work and that she has a tendonitis of the lt shoulder vs an impingement syndrome. I feel that she needs further evaluation and management by an orthopedic surgeon and I have referred her onto Dr Jameson. She has an appt with him on May 30 and will see him for further tx. She does not require any further pain meds at this time as she is not out. I did give her a note to be restricted from using her lt arm until she is seen by the ortho surgeon.

On May 25, 2006, Dr. Remmers referred claimant to an orthopedic surgeon located in Burlington. Theron Jameson, D.O., examined claimant and ordered a MRI of the left shoulder. (Ex. 7, p. 30) The results of the MRI were provided by Stephen P. Murphy, M.D. Dr. Murphy interpreted the results as:

1.        ABNORMAL SIGNAL INTENSITY ANTERIOR DISTAL PORTION OF THE SUPRASPINATUS TENDON COMPATIBLE WITH TENDINITIS VERSUS PARTIAL BURSAL SURFACE TEAR. ROTATOR CUFF IS OTHERWISE UNREMARKABLE IN APPEARANCE,


2.        DEGENERATIVE OSTEOARTHRITIC CHANGES OF THE ACROMIOCLAVICULAR JOINT AND ASSOCIATED OUTLET STENOSIS AND SUSPECTED IMPINGEMENT SYNDROME.

On June 30, 2006, Dr. Jameson performed an arthroscopic repair of the left shoulder. The surgeon repaired an impingement syndrome . (Ex. 2, p. 22) Claimant participated in physical therapy following her surgery. (Ex. 6, p. 180) She was released from therapy on September 20, 2006. Andy Youngquist, P.T., oversaw claimant's rehabilitation. Once claimant was returned to work, Mr. Youngquist advised her to engage in home therapy for her left shoulder and to return to her desired daily activities. (Ex. 6, p. 228)

Claimant returned to employment with defendant on September 1, 2006. Claimant was able to resume her regular work duties. As stipulated, claimant was off work from June 30, 2006 through August 31, 2006. This was a period of 9 weeks. She held her position until December 6, 2006 when claimant voluntarily resigned her employment as discussed previously.


The party who would suffer loss if an issue were not established has the burden of proving that issue by a preponderance of the evidence. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6).


The claimant has the burden of proving by of preponderance of the evidence that the alleged injury actually occurred and that it both arose out of and in the course of the employment. Quaker Oats Co. v. Ciha, 552 N.W.2d 143 (Iowa 1996); Miedema v. Dial Corp., 551 N.W.2d 309 (Iowa 1996). The words “arising out of” referred to the cause or source of the injury. The words “in the course of” refer to the time, place, and circumstances of the injury. 2800 Corp. v. Fernandez, 528 N.W.2d 124 (Iowa 1995). An injury arises out of the employment when a causal relationship exists between the injury and the employment. Miedema, 551 N.W.2d 309. The injury must be a rational consequence of a hazard connected with the employment and not merely incidental to the employment. Koehler Electric v. Wills, 608 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2000); Miedema, 551 N.W.2d 309. An injury occurs “in the course of” employment when it happens within a period of employment at a place where the employee reasonably may be when performing employment duties and while the employee is fulfilling those duties or doing an activity incidental to them. Ciha, 552 N.W.2d 143.


Claimant sustained a cumulative injury that arose out of and in the course of claimant’s employment. Claimant’s testimony about the repetitive nature of her work duties is determined to be credible. The work injury manifested itself on February 22, 2006 when claimant first sought medical treatment for her left shoulder condition.


A personal injury contemplated by the workers’ compensation law means an injury, the impairment of health or a disease resulting from an injury which comes about, not through the natural building up and tearing down of the human body, but because of trauma. The injury must be something that acts extraneously to the natural processes of nature and thereby impairs the health, interrupts or otherwise destroys or damages a part or all of the body. Although many injuries have a traumatic onset, there is no requirement for a special incident or an unusual occurrence. Injuries which result from cumulative trauma are compensable. Increased disability from a prior injury, even if brought about by further work, does not constitute a new injury, however. St. Luke’s Hosp. v. Gray, 604 N.W.2d 646 (Iowa 2000); Ellingson v. Fleetguard, Inc., 599 N.W.2d 440 (Iowa 1999); Dunlavey v. Economy Fire and Cas. Co., 526 N.W.2d 845 (Iowa 1995); McKeever Custom Cabinets v. Smith, 379 N.W.2d 368 (Iowa 1985). An occupational disease covered by chapter 85A is specifically excluded from the definition of personal injury. Iowa Code section 85.61(4) (b); Iowa Code section 85A.8; Iowa Code section 85A.14.


When the injury develops gradually over time, the cumulative injury rule applies. The date of injury for cumulative injury purposes is the date on which the disability manifests. Manifestation is best characterized as that date on which both the fact of injury and the causal relationship of the injury to the claimant’s employment would be plainly apparent to a reasonable person. The date of manifestation inherently is a fact based determination. The fact-finder is entitled to substantial latitude in making this determination and may consider a variety of factors, none of which is necessarily dispositive in establishing a manifestation date. Among others, the factors may include missing work when the condition prevents performing the job, or receiving significant medical care for the condition. For time limitation purposes, the discovery rule then becomes pertinent so the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the employee, as a reasonable person, knows or should know, that the cumulative injury condition is serious enough to have a permanent, adverse impact on his or her employment. Herrera v. IBP, Inc., 633 N.W.2d 284 (Iowa 2001); Oscar Mayer Foods Corp. v. Tasler, 483 N.W.2d 824 (Iowa 1992); McKeever Custom Cabinets v. Smith, 379 N.W.2d 368 (Iowa 1985).


The fundamental issue here is the matter of causation. Defendants contend claimant’s employment was not a substantial factor in causing her left shoulder condition. The evidence must establish the causal connection was probable rather than merely possible.


The claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury is a proximate cause of the disability on which the claim is based. A cause is proximate if it is a substantial factor in bringing about the result; it need not be the only cause. A preponderance of the evidence exists when the causal connection is probable rather than merely possible. George A. Hormel & Co. v. Jordan, 569 N.W.2d 148 (Iowa 1997); Frye v. Smith-Doyle Contractors, 569 N.W.2d 154 (Iowa App. 1997); Sanchez v. Blue Bird Midwest, 554 N.W.2d 283 (Iowa App. 1996).


The question of causal connection is essentially within the domain of expert testimony. The expert medical evidence must be considered with all other evidence introduced bearing on the causal connection between the injury and the disability. Supportive lay testimony may be used to buttress the expert testimony and, therefore, is also relevant and material to the causation question. The weight to be given to an expert opinion is determined by the finder of fact and may be affected by the accuracy of the facts the expert relied upon as well as other surrounding circumstances. The expert opinion may be accepted or rejected, in whole or in part. St. Luke’s Hosp. v. Gray, 604 N.W.2d 646 (Iowa 2000); IBP, Inc. v. Harpole, 621 N.W.2d 410 (Iowa 2001); Dunlavey v. Economy Fire and Cas. Co., 526 N.W.2d 845 (Iowa 1995). Miller v. Lauridsen Foods, Inc., 525 N.W.2d 417 (Iowa 1994). Unrebutted expert medical testimony cannot be summarily rejected. Poula v. Siouxland Wall & Ceiling, Inc., 516 N.W.2d 910 (Iowa App. 1994).


Initially, Dr. Remmers, Dr. Garrels, and Dr. Jameson related claimant’s overuse injury to her employment. Dr. Garrells, the authorized treating physician, treated claimant for an “impingement syndrome.” The physician injected claimant’s left shoulder with cortisone. When claimant desired a MRI of the left shoulder, defendants denied liability for the claim. As a consequence, claimant continued to treat with her family physician, Dr. Remmers. She opined claimant suffered from an overuse syndrome and that it was related to claimant’s employment. Dr. Remmers treated claimant with that opinion in mind. Likewise, Dr. Jameson surgically repaired the left shoulder. Initially, he held the same opinion regarding causation as did Dr. Remmers.


When the video depiction was presented to the treating physicians, they changed their opinions relative to causation. Each physician was asked to assume the video was an accurate depiction of the duties claimant performed. However, as claimant testified, the man depicted in the videotape was tall and lanky. According to claimant’s testimony, the man performed the job in an entirely different manner than did claimant. Because of claimant’s height and build, she had to perform her job duties in a different manner. She had to rest the long hoses on her shoulder and then place the hoses over her shoulder in order to engage in testing. Claimant experienced pressure on her shoulder. She also had to lift boxes repetitively as part of her job duties. Claimant’s testimony regarding how she performed her job duties was believable. Given her build and height, plus the length of the long hoses, it was easy to imagine she would have to perform her job duties in a manner different than a tall lanky person. Defendants, in their video, did not demonstrate the manner with which claimant employed to perform the same duties. Therefore, the video tape was not an accurate representation. It did not depict the manner claimant performed her duties. As a consequence, the opinions of the three treating physicians were based on inaccurate information. Their opinions relative to causation were erroneous and the undersigned specifically rejects their opinions on causation.


Charles E. Eddingfield, M.D., on the other hand, found causation between claimant’s condition and her employment. Dr. Eddingfield based his causation opinion on the credible information claimant related to him. Dr. Eddingfield’s opinion is accepted with respect to causation. Based upon the medical opinion of Dr. Eddingfield, and the credible lay testimony provided by claimant, the undersigned finds claimant’s left shoulder condition was causally related to her employment.


Claimant’s condition was permanent in nature. Dr. Eddingfield opined claimant had a 14 percent permanent impairment to the right upper extremity. A 14 percent impairment to the right upper extremity equaled an 8 percent impairment to the body as a whole.


When disability is found in the shoulder, a body as a whole situation may exist. Alm v. Morris Barick Cattle Co., 240 Iowa 1174, 38 N.W.2d 161 (1949). In Nazarenus v. Oscar Mayer & Co., II Iowa Industrial Commissioner Report 281 (App. 1982), a torn rotator cuff was found to cause disability to the body as a whole.


The next issue to address is the extent of claimant’s industrial disability. Even though claimant has no permanent restrictions, it is reasonable to assume claimant should avoid positions where she will be expected to lift repetitively above shoulder level. As indicated earlier, claimant voluntarily terminated her employment with this employer. The termination was for reasons other than this work injury. She was an employee in good standing when she terminated. Also as indicated earlier, claimant is not motivated to seek employment. She has many transferable skills, yet she has not consistently sought other employment. Claimant is quite capable of retraining. She has not pursued vocational rehabilitation through the Iowa Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. It is the determination of the undersigned; claimant has a permanent partial disability in the amount of 8 percent. Claimant is entitled to 40 weeks of permanent partial disability benefits at the stipulated weekly benefit rate of $334.02 per week and commencing from the stipulated date of September 1, 2006.


In arbitration proceedings, interest accrues on unpaid permanent disability benefits from the onset of permanent disability. Farmer's Elevator Co., Kingsley v. Manning, 286 N.W.2d 174 (Iowa 1979); Benson v. Good Samaritan Ctr., Ruling on Rehearing, October 18, 1989.


The next issue to address is the issue of healing period benefits. Nb 21 Section 85.34(1) provides that healing period benefits are payable to an injured worker who has suffered permanent partial disability until (1) the worker has returned to work; (2) the worker is medically capable of returning to substantially similar employment; or (3) the worker has achieved maximum medical recovery. The healing period can be considered the period during which there is a reasonable expectation of improvement of the disabling condition. See Armstrong Tire & Rubber Co. v. Kubli, Iowa App 312 N.W.2d 60 (1981). Healing period benefits can be interrupted or intermittent. Teel v. McCord, 394 N.W.2d 405 (Iowa 1986).


The parties stipulated that if healing period benefits were awarded; claimant was entitled to benefits from June 30, 2006 through August 31, 2006. This is a period of 9 weeks. Had the parties not stipulated to the time frame above, the undersigned would have also awarded an additional 1.714 weeks of healing period benefits for the periods from March 21, 2006 through March 27, 2006 and from April 5, 2006 through April 10, 2007. However, since claimant did not request benefits for the 1.714 weeks, benefits for that time will not be awarded. Claimant is entitled to 9 weeks of healing period benefits for the period from June 30, 2006 through August 31, 2006 at the stipulated weekly benefit rate of $334.02 per week.


Claimant is requesting $500.00 for the cost of the independent medical examination conducted by Dr. Eddingfield. Claimant alleges the examination was conducted pursuant to Iowa Code section 85.39 of the Iowa Code.


Section 85.39 permits an employee to be reimbursed for subsequent examination by a physician of the employee's choice where an employer-retained physician has previously evaluated "permanent disability" and the employee believes that the initial evaluation is too low. The section also permits reimbursement for reasonably necessary transportation expenses incurred and for any wage loss occasioned by the employee attending the subsequent examination.


Defendants are responsible only for reasonable fees associated with claimant's independent medical examination. Claimant has the burden of proving the reasonableness of the expenses incurred for the examination. See Schintgen v. Economy Fire & Casualty Co., File No. 855298 (App. April 26, 1991). Defendants' liability for claimant's injury must be established before defendants are obligated to reimburse claimant for independent medical examination. McSpadden v. Big Ben Coal Co., 288 N.W.2d 181 (Iowa 1980).


However, Iowa Code section 85.39 is not relevant in the instant case because defendant never had an employer retained physician examine claimant for purposes of rendering a permanent disability. Claimant is entitled to the cost of Dr. Eddingfield’s medical report in the amount of $125.00.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED:


Defendants shall pay unto claimant, forty (40) weeks of permanent partial disability benefits at the stipulated weekly benefit rate of three hundred thirty-four and 02/100 ($334.02) per week and benefits shall commence from September 1, 2006.


Defendants shall also pay unto claimant, nine (9) weeks of healing period benefits for the period from June 1, 2006 through August 31, 2006.


Accrued benefits shall be paid in a lump sum, plus interest, as allowed by law,


Costs, as allowed by law, including one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125.00) for the cost of Dr. Eddingfield’s medical report, shall be paid by defendants.


Within thirty (30) days, defendants shall file a first report of injury for the injury date of February 22, 2006.


Signed and filed this ____27th____ day of June, 2007.

________________________

James P. Hoffman

Attorney at Law

PO Box 1087

Keokuk, IA 52632

Mark A. Bosscher

Attorney at Law

PO Box 9130

Des Moines, IA 50306

MAM/dll