Opinion ID: 1877204
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Goff v. Bil-Mar Foods, Inc.

Text: In Goff, the magistrate awarded benefits to the complainant who suffered a back injury at work. The WCAC reversed the magistrate's award for lack of competent, material, and substantial evidence on the record. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the WCAC. We affirm also. Grant S. Goff was hired by Bil-Mar Foods, Inc. in 1988, and was assigned to operate the hapman. This job required the continuous shoveling of twenty-five to thirty pounds of ground turkey from one large tank into smaller pots on wheels. The large tank held approximately 2,000 pounds, and each pot weighed 360 pounds when filled with meat. [8] Upon filling the smaller pot with meat, the plaintiff would roll it approximately four feet to a mechanical lift, where, at the push of a button, it would be lifted, emptied, and lowered. The plaintiff would then push the pot back to the tank and begin the process again. On the evening of October 25, 1989, after having worked at Bill-Mar for over one year, and while shoveling meat from the tank, the plaintiff said he suddenly blacked out and experienced intense pain in his back and legs. On this particular evening, the lift on the hapman was not functioning properly and had to be watched closely to prevent the pots from hitting the floor. This required the plaintiff to lift the pots up and down by hand to prevent further damage to the machine. Plaintiff indicated that he never had back problems before working at this job, but that he now has chronic disabling back pain. The plaintiff was treated initially by the company physician, Dr. Chris, who treated him with Motrin and imposed certain restrictions. These included lifting no more than twenty-five pounds, and no twisting, bending, or turning. However, the company did not follow through with the restrictions and plaintiff testified that he was still lifting over twenty-five pounds, i.e., loading eighty-pound grinder blades and hauling trash. The plaintiff continued to work in pain until March 2, 1990, [9] when he was assigned to organizing a cooler. Although he complained that his back was bothering him and that this task was more than his back could handle, he was given no alternative, other than to go home. The plaintiff finished the shift, in spite of increasing pain and did not return to work. He received worker's compensation benefits for seventeen weeks. These payments were stopped after Dr. Robertson pronounced him fit for work. [10] The plaintiff petitioned for reinstatement of benefits. The magistrate granted continuing benefits after finding a work-related continuing partial disability, despite serious doubts regarding the plaintiff's credibility and the injury itself. The WCAC reversed the award, finding no competent, material, and substantial evidence in the record to support the award. After remand to the Court of Appeals from this Court for consideration as on leave granted, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the WCAC. The plaintiff was evaluated by a parade of doctors and chiropractors, who found little or no objective evidence of the plaintiff's back problems. We will summarize the voluminous findings of the five doctors and one chiropractor who evaluated and treated the plaintiff. The plaintiff told all the doctors that he experienced tremendous back pain, pain down both legs, headaches, anxiety, stomach problems, weight loss, inability to stand erect, difficulty standing, walking, and driving, and difficulty sleeping. After being treated at work by Dr. Chris, plaintiff sought treatment with Dr. Street, a chiropractor in Marshall, Michigan. Dr. Street referred plaintiff to Dr. Kilpatrick, a second chiropractor, who was located closer to plaintiff's home. [11] Dr. Kilpatrick referred the plaintiff to Gary L. Miller, D.O., a neurologist, who treated the plaintiff between March 5, 1990, and May 16, 1990. Dr. Miller ordered a myriad of medical tests, including lumbar spine x-rays, a complete myelogram, and a CT scan, if indicated. Dr. Miller found that the plaintiff had a mild annular disk bulge at the L5-4 level and a suggestion that the left L-5 root was not filling as complete[ly] as the right. However, after his examination, Dr. Miller concluded that this finding might account for some of the plaintiff's discomfort, but not all the other diffuse problems that he continued to experience. With the exception of this finding, the other tests and the clinical examination did not yield any significant findings to support the plaintiff's complaints. Dr. Miller determined that plaintiff suffered from both persistent mechanical low back pain, likely related to discogenic disease in the lumbar spine, and primary fibromyalgia syndrome, which he treated with antidepressants and muscle relaxants. [12] In his report to Dr. Kilpatrick, Dr. Miller recommended referring the plaintiff for biofeedback and pain-management techniques, and to Dr. Brink for treatment of depression. [13] Dr. Miller concluded that he would not impose any restrictions on the plaintiff returning to work, but when pressed by opposing counsel, indicated that he might have suggested no heavy manual work. He urged the plaintiff to be as active as possible and to continue with physical therapy and taking aspirin. At the request of his attorney, plaintiff was examined by Dr. James R. Glessner, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Glessner found that the patient had a list [14] of the spine to the left that intensified with bending forward. Dr. Glessner concluded, after his examination and further testing, that this man has [a] disc problem in his low back with probable nerve root irritability in the right lower limb; indeed he may have had some nerve root compression in the past. He has no demonstrable objective evidence of nerve root compression at present. In addition, the x-rays of the plaintiff's lower back, CT scans, myelogram, cervical spine, and sacroiliac joint films, all were either negative or within normal limits. Dr. Glessner recommended lifting restrictions of twenty-five pounds or less, and retraining for a less arduous-type of occupation in the future. Dr. Glessner noted that the list was the only objective evidence of any nerve root irritability. On cross-examination during deposition, he agreed that there was no hard objective evidence of disc disease at present other than the list. He conceded that he based his findings on the plaintiff's physical and subjective complaints. The plaintiff was evaluated by three medical examiners for the defendant. Depositions were taken from all three. J. Alan Robertson, M.D., D.C., examined the plaintiff on June 7, 1990. It was after this examination that benefits were discontinued. After an extensive physical examination, Dr. Robertson concluded: Clinical examination of Mr. Goff's person on today's date does not demonstrate the presence of objective abnormality, either structurally or functionally, to his musculoskeletal system which would represent residuals of injury, regardless of their etiology. Mr. Goff is not in need of treatment to his person for residuals of injuries to have been sustained secondary to the occupational events as above described to me by Mr. Goff. From today's examination, I am unable to demonstrate the presence of objective abnormality to the person of Mr. Goff which would exclude him from the normal performance of those activities common to daily living to include personal hygienic activities, household chores, recreational activities or gainful employment activities in the field of common manual labor. Mr. Goff does not require environmental modification, personal assistance or functional limitation in the performance of these activities. Mr. Goff is not physically disabled. Dr. Robertson opined that the plaintiff could return to unrestricted labor, and that the plaintiff engaged in symptom amplification or magnification, to the extent that the symptoms were inconsistent with the objective findings after the clinical examination. Arnold Eckhouse, D.O., evaluated the plaintiff on July 25, 1990. Dr. Eckhouse found no objective evidence to support the plaintiff's complaints and noted the patient's nervousness. I find that at the time of this evaluation, that all of his complaints are subjective in nature. He is extremely nervous, and there may be some functional overlay. With reference to the L4-L5 bulge, Dr. Eckhouse indicated that it is not always medically significant and is the price that we pay for walking on two feet. Dr. Eckhouse disagreed with Dr. Glessner that the patient exhibited a disc problem with nerve root irritability and would not restrict the plaintiff's work in any way because there were no objective orthopedic findings to justify any limitations. Dr. Leslie A. Neuman, a board-certified neurologist, examined the plaintiff on December 10, 1990. He performed electrodiagnostic testing on the plaintiff, found all the results to be within normal limits, and concluded that there was no electrodiagnostic explanation for the plaintiff's back problems. Dr. Neuman also noted that plaintiff might be embellishing his symptoms because his examination did not follow an organic pattern of one nerve root being affected. The magistrate found a continuing partial disability and granted a continuing award of benefits to the plaintiff. The magistrate reviewed the findings and opinions in the deposition testimony of the medical personnel who were called on to evaluate or treat the plaintiff. The magistrate also assessed the credibility of the plaintiff. Ultimately, the magistrate noted: This brings me to a very troublesome aspect of this case. I am convinced that Plaintiff has not only deliberately magnified his current level of symptoms, but has falsely responded to certain clinical tests to manipulate the outcome of the examination. By a way of example: During Dr. Robertson's examination, he permitted straight leg raising in the supine position to 65 degrees. At that point, he contracted his leg muscles to prevent further movement. While in the prone position, he contracted his leg muscles to prevent a knee bend from heel to buttock. That is not a physiologic response. At another point, Plaintiff deliberately froze up his neck muscles as soon as he realized his neck was being evaluated for movement purposes.... During Dr. Eckhouse's examination, he complained of pain on supine straight leg raising at 20 degrees on the right and 40 degrees on the left. Yet, while seated, he accomplished 90 degrees straight leg raising without complaint. During Dr. Neuman's examination he complained of pain in all movements with both legs, with straight leg raising complaints at 50 degrees. He also presented give away weakness in the proximal muscles of both legs with intact strength distally. That is inconsistent with all of his history, findings and complaints. Weakness in his hip flexors and lateral rotators would relate to an upper lumbar problem.... Both Dr. Miller and Dr. Eckhouse observed Plaintiff to be extremely nervous or tense and anxietous [sic]. Both observed Plaintiff to be tremulous. Dr. Glessner observed Plaintiff to be quite protective of his back. I surmise that there is an unexplored functional component of Plaintiff's symptoms. The difficulty with this claim is to determine what significance to attach to Plaintiff's embellishments. I am aware that claimants often mistrust the compensation system and feel that they must exaggerate their symptoms in order to be found disabled. By the same token, claimants must preponderate with credible evidence. There is no clear road map to the right result in this case, and if I had only Plaintiff's credibility to rely on, he would probably lose. However, on the basis of the circumstances leading to the injury, the list discovered by Dr. Glessner, and the bulge at L4-L5, the magistrate determined that the plaintiff should not return to unrestricted common labor and that there should be restrictions on lifting, bending, and twisting. Thus, the magistrate found the plaintiff to have a partial continuing work-related disability and ordered that continuing disability benefits be paid until further order of the bureau. [15] Bil-Mar appealed the decision to the WCAC on the grounds that there was not competent, material, and substantial evidence on the record to support the magistrate's finding of a continuing work-related disability arising out of the injuries occurring in October, 1989, and March, 1990. The WCAC agreed and reversed the award of benefits. The commission held that the magistrate's reliance on Dr. Glessner's findings was misplaced and unreasonable because the doctor's conclusion was based on the plaintiff's own subjective account. The WCAC quoted from Dr. Glessner's report: In summary, I think this man has disc problems in his low back with probable nerve root irritability in the right lower limb; indeed he may have had some nerve root compression in the past. He has no demonstrable objective evidence of nerve root compression at present. If his history was correct, the intense activity he was subjected to last October is probably responsible for his problem. [1993 Mich. ACO 166, 169 (emphasis in original).] The commission also discussed the L4-L5 bulge that four physicians concluded was not significant and could not adequately explain all the plaintiff's complaints. Id. at 169-170. On the basis of lack of hard objective data in the record, the plaintiff's embellishment of his symptoms, and the magistrate's finding that the patient was somewhat incredible, the WCAC reversed the findings of the magistrate on the basis of a lack of competent, material, and substantial evidence in the record. We agree and note further that the application of the Holden test supports this result. The WCAC carefully reviewed the record, including the opinion of the magistrate, the medical evidence, and the opinions of the doctors. It noted at the outset the magistrate's concern with the plaintiff's lack of credibility: [I]f I had only Plaintiff's credibility to rely on, he would probably lose. Id. at 167. The WCAC then pointed out that the magistrate relied on the findings of one examining physician who, not only found no real objective evidence to explain the plaintiff's range of complaints, except for a list in his back, but based his opinion on the plaintiff's physical and subjective complaints. It is true that a magistrate can rely on the medical evidence found to be the most persuasive if there is a reasonable basis for that choice. Clark v. Lakeview Community Nursing Home, 1992 Mich. ACO 565. However, in this case, the WCAC concluded that the magistrate's reliance on Dr. Glessner's testimony was misplaced and unreasonable because the credibility of the information supplied to Dr. Glessner was suspect. This only served to undermine his testimony and supports the WCAC's finding that the magistrate's decision was not based on competent, material, or substantial record evidence. The WCAC reversed the decision of the magistrate after noting the plaintiff's obvious lack of credibility, the doctors' findings that the plaintiff engaged in obvious symptom magnification, the plaintiff's attempts to control the outcome of his physical examinations, and the doctors' inability to find any objective explanation for the sum total of the plaintiff's complaints. This decision was based on a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the whole record. To be fair, the doctors all noted the L4-L5 bulge, but indicated that this is not necessarily abnormal. The only other objective indication of any problem was the list noted by Dr. Glessner, but even in his medical opinion, there was no demonstrable objective evidence of a nerve root problem. Therefore, the findings of the magistrate could not be conclusive in this case because the magistrate's decision was not reasonably supported by any material, competent, and substantial evidence. Consequently, the WCAC correctly determined that it was not bound by the magistrate's decision. Finally, we note that the WCAC provided an adequate reason for reversing the decision of the magistrate. The WCAC reviewed the whole record, including the findings of the magistrate and carefully and thoughtfully detailed the reasons for its reversal. The Court of Appeals noted the proper but limited scope of its own review power. That is a review of only the findings of fact by the WCAC that are conclusive if supported by competent evidence on the whole record. In a brief opinion, the Court of Appeals evaluated the WCAC determination according to the guidelines stated in Holden and affirmed the decision of the WCAC. We affirm and hold that the WCAC properly applied the substantial evidence on the record standard and was justified in finding that the magistrate's decision was not founded on competent, material, and substantial evidence and therefore could not be considered conclusive. [16] B