Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mattick v. Hy-Vee Foods Stores

Supreme Court of Minnesota

July 12, 2017

Debra K. Mattick, Respondent,
v.
Hy-Vee Foods Stores, Self-Insured/EMC Risk Services, Inc., Relators, and Mayo Clinic and Hartford Life, Intervenors.

         Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals Office of Appellate Courts

          Dana L. Gerber, Atkinson Law Office, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for respondent.

          Jeffrey J. Lindquist, Pustorino, Tilton, Parrington & Lindquist, PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for relators.

         SYLLABUS

         1. The Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) erred when it held that the expert opinion upon which the compensation judge relied lacked adequate factual foundation.

         2. The WCCA clearly and manifestly erred when it reversed the compensation judge's factual finding that respondent's work injury was not a substantial contributing cause of her surgery that addressed a preexisting arthritis condition.

         Reversed.

          OPINION

          McKEIG, Justice.

         This case requires us to determine whether the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) exceeded the scope of its review when it reversed the compensation judge's decision to deny benefits to respondent-employee Debra K. Mattick. Because the compensation judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence, we conclude that the WCCA exceeded the scope of its review. Accordingly, we reverse the WCCA's decision and reinstate the compensation judge's decision.

         FACTS

         Mattick has worked as a cake decorator at a Hy-Vee store in Albert Lea since 2001. In 2000, before she began working for Hy-Vee, Mattick fractured her right ankle and underwent surgery. The fracture did not heal properly, and a second surgery was required. After completing physical therapy, Mattick soon returned to working as a cake decorator. She also engaged in active recreational activities including sand volleyball and biking. Her current job at Hy-Vee requires her to work on her feet for 40 to 45 hours per week.

         Four years after the 2000 injury, Mattick experienced pain in her right ankle for about a month. She was diagnosed with post-traumatic arthritis and was advised to treat her ankle at home with arch supports, an ankle brace, icing, stretching, and anti-inflammatory drugs.

         Mattick testified that from 2004 to 2014, she felt minor pain and swelling in her right ankle several times per year, usually coinciding with changes in the weather. She treated the symptoms at home by taking anti-inflammatory drugs and wearing an ankle brace when playing sports.

         On January 18, 2014, while working at Hy-Vee, Mattick tripped over a pallet and twisted her right ankle. She finished her work shift, iced and wrapped her ankle for 24 hours, and worked another full day with her ankle wrapped before seeking medical treatment on January 20. Mattick's ankle exhibited only mild swelling with no bruising, but x-rays showed "[d]egenerative changes at the ankle joint." She was diagnosed with a sprain and was instructed to wear an ankle brace, elevate her ankle, take anti-inflammatory drugs, and place weight on the ankle "as tolerated." ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.