Qdex 2009-0295

WC# 04-13983

John Krems v. Ethyl Petroleum Additives

Cite Key:

Qdex 2009-0050 = 09-IWCC-0050

Qdex 2009-2-01 = Year 2009 - Appellate Court - Qdex Tracking No.

Qdex 2009-1-01 = Year 2009 - Supreme Court - Qdex Tracking No.

Q-DEX

04 WC 13983 Page I

STATE OF ILLINOIS )

SS COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR )

U Injured Workers' Benefit Fund ($4(d)) a Rate Adjustment Fund ($X(g))

0 Second Injury Fund ($8(e)18) n PTDIFatal denied

[XI None of the abovc

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION

John Krems, Petitioner,

NO: 04 WC 13983

Ethyl Petroleum Additives, Respondent.

DECISION AND OPINION ON REVIEW

Timely Petition for Review having been filed by the Respondent herein and notice given to all parties, the Commission, after considering the Issuc of medical expenses, temporary total disability, and permanent partial disability and being adviscd of thc facts and law, affirms and adopts the Decision of the Arbitrator, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION that the Decision of the Arbitrator filed May 7,2007 is hereby affirmed and adopted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION that the Respondent pay to Petitioner interest under $1 9(n) of the Act, if any.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION that the Respondent shall have credit for all amounts paid, if any, to or on behalf of the Petitioner on account of said accidental injury.

Q-DEX

Bond for thc removal of this cause to the Circuit Court by Respondent is hereby fixed at the sum of $75,000.00. The probable cost of the record to be filed as return to Summons is the sum of $35.00, payable to the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission in the form of cash, check or money order therefor and deposited with the Office of the Secretary of the Commission.

DATED: MAR 3 0 2009 Paul W. Rink .

P--- Kcvin W. Lambo

Q-DEX

ILLINOIS WORKERS' CORIPENS&TION COMPIISSION NOTICE DECISION OF ARBITRATOR

0 n N 2 7 ;Looql., an arbitration decision on this case was filed with the Illinois Workers' Cotnpetlsation Commis f on in Chicago, a copy of which is enclosed.

A copy of this decisiorl is [nailed to the following patties:

49 0810 04WC 13983 BECKER, PAULSON & I-IOERNER PC 511 1 W. MAIN f3El.l.EVIl.l.E, 11. 62226

50 0180 04 WC 13983 EVANS & DIXON, LLC I I00 MILLENNIUM EXECUTIVE CENTER 51 5 OLIVE ST ST LOUIS, MO 63101-1836

Q-DEX

STATE OF ILLINOIS ) 1

COUNTY OF St. Clair f

ILLINOIS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION ARBITRATION DECISION

John Krems Employeefletitioner

Ethyl Petroleum Additives Employer/Respondent

Case # 04 WC 013983

Belleville

An Applicationfor Ad/ustment ofclaim was filed in this matter, and a Notice ofHearrng was mailed to each party.

The matter was heard by the Iionorable Jennifer Teague , arbitrator of the Cornmisston,

in the city of Belleville , on April 17, 2007 . After reviewing all of the evidence

presented, the arbitrator hereby makes findings on the disputed issues checked below, and attaches those findings to

this document.

DISPUTED ISStJES

A. Was the respontlent operating under and subject to thc Illinois Workers' Cornpcnsatiotl or Occupatiotlal Diseases Act'?

R. n Was thcrc an cmployce-cmploycr- relationship?

C. Did an accident occur that arosc out orant1 i l l thc course of the pctitiorier's elnployment hy the rcspondcnt'?

D. 0 What was the date of the accident?

E. Was timely notice of the accident given to the respondent?

F. Is the petitioner's present condition of ill-being causally related to the injury?

C;. n What were the petitioner's earnings'?

H. 0 What was the petitioner's age at the time ofthe accident?

I. 0 What was the petitioner's marital status at the time of the accident?

J. IX] Were the medical services that were provided to petitioner reasonable and necessary?

K. @ What amount of con~pcnsation is due for temporary total disability?

L. a What is the nature and extent of the injury?

M. Should penalties or fees be inlposed upon the respondent?

N. Is the respondent due any credit?

0. Other ' ICArbDec 12/04 100 W Randohh .Street 118-200 Clzicogo, IL 60601 312IS14-6611 Toll-fee 8661352-3033 Web sire: www. fwccii.gov Dowmrateoflces: CoIlinrville6181346-3450 I'coria3091671-3019 Roc~ord815/987-7292 Spr;,t~cld217/785-70S4

Q-DEX

Fm'DWGS 08rwcco295 . On July 23, 2003 , the respondent Ethyl Petroleum Additives was operatmg under and subject to the

provisions of the Act

On this date, an employee-employer relationship did exist between the petitioner and respondent.

. On this date, the petitioner did sustain injuries that arose out of and in the course of employment.

Timely notice of this accident was given to the respondent.

In the year preceding the injury, the petitioner earned $ 43,659.20 ; the average weekly wage was $ 839.60 .

- At the time of injury, the petitioner was 43 years of age, married with 2 children under 18.

. Necessary medical services have in part been provided by the respondent.

To date, $4,768.26 has been paid by the respondent for TTD andlor maintenance benefits.

ORDER

The respondent shall pay the petitioner temporary total disability benefits of $559.73/week for 12 weeks, from July 24, 2003 throuqh September 14, 2003 through February 5 , 2004 throuqh March 11, 2004 , which is the period of temporary total disability for which coinpensation is payable. - The respondent shall pay the pet~tloner the sum of $503.76/week ford furthe1 p e ~ ~ o d of= weeks, as prov~ded in Section 8(c), 8 (d)(2), 8 (e)(10) and 8(e1(12) of the Act, because the injuries sustained caused 30 weeks of disfiqurement to the right hand, right forearm; 2% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole due to the burns sustained to the abdomen; 10% permanent partial disability to the left arm and 5% permanent partial disability to the left leg

T'he respondent shall pay thc petitioncr compensation that has accrued Li-oiu July 24, 2003 through April 17, 2007 , and shall pay the remainder of the award, if any, in weekly payments.

+ The respondent shall pay the further sum of $ 32,318.50 for necessary medical services, as provided in Section 8(a) of the Act. Said bills were incurred prior to February 1,2006 and shall be paid in their entircty. IZespondent shall receive credit for all amounts previously paid.

The respondent shall pay $ % in penalties, as provided in Section I9(k) of the Act.

- The respondent shall pay $ N/A in penalties, as provided in Section lY(1) of the Act.

Tbe respondent shall pay $ in attorneys' fees, as provided in Section 16 of'the Act.

NIA - RULES REGARDING ArPEALS Unless a party files a Petifionfir Review within 30 days after receipt of this decision, and perfects a review in accordance with the Act and Rules, then this decision shall be entered as the decision of the Commission. 4 - 6 2 STATEMENT OF IBTEREST RATE If the Commission reviews this award, interest of % shall accrue from the date listed below to the day before the date of payment; however, if an employee's appeal results in either no

7 May 2,2007 Date

ICArbDcc p. 2

MAY 7 2@i'

Q-DEX

John ~ r e m s v. Ethyl Petroleum Additives 04 WC 13983

The Arbitrator hereby makes the following Findings o f Fact:

At the time of the hearing Petitioner was 47 years of age and had been employed by Respondent for 18 years. He listed his job classification as an electrical and instrumentation technician. At the time of the accident, however, his job classification was that of a general mechanic. This required him to repair and work on various pieces of machinery within Respondent's facility. His job was quite physical in nature.

On July 23, 2003 Petitioner was repairing a leaking gasket on a strainer. He was working with another mechanic at the time. They were on a six-foot scaffold and were in the process of removing the strainer. Through some malfunction, steam was released from the pipe to which the strainer was attached, striking the Petitioner in the abdomen and upper extremity areas. The Petitioner sustained burns to his abdomen, right hand and right forearm and left hand.

In an attempt to escape the steam, Petitioner jumped off of the scaffold without taking into account anything that might have been beneath him. He struck several parts of his body on various items as he fell. In addition to the burns, he had bruises on certain parts of his body and had sustained a small crescent puncture-type wound to his left elbow.

Immediately following the event, he was taken to Memorial Hospital in Belleville. It was noted at the time of the admission that he was a diabetic and had sustained steam burns. Those burns consisted of first and second degree burns of the right hand, both forearms and his abdomen. They estimated that it involved 10% of his body surface.

On July 24, 2003, Petitioner was taken to surgery by Dr. Amorn Salyapongse. All burn areas were scrubbed and rinsed, all blisters and dead skin were removed, Silvadene cream was applied and compression dressings were applied. He was discharged on July 27, 2003 and was instructed to take oral antibiotics.

On July 29, 2003, Petitioner was referred by Respondent to Dr. Richard Coin, a Plastic Surgeon in St. Louis County. Dr. Coin noted Petitioner was a borderline diabetic and sustained second and third degree burns to the right hand, the right volar wrist, the right radial volar forearm and the left radial base of the hand. He had also sustained burns to his abdomen. Dr. Coin found evidence of some non-viable skin to both arms and recommended surgery.

Petitioner was admitted to St. John's Mercy Medical Center on August 1, 2003 and taken to surgery on the same date. Dr. Coin removed the non-viable skin from the right hand, the web space between the first and second metacarpals, the right wrist, the left hand and the left wrist. Skin grafts were taken from his left thigh and applied to areas of non-viable skin.

Prior to surgery, x-rays were taken of Petitioner's right elbow. This revealed hypertrophic degenerative changes. He was discharged from St. John's on August 2, 2003. Petitioner had installed a PlCC line for the introduction of intravenous antibiotics. He had nurses visit his home to change his dressings and to administer to the PlCC line.

Q-DEX

Petitioner testified he had mentioned his left elbow to Dr. Coin, but that Dr. Coin did not examine that portion of his body. He also said that he mentioned it to the physical therapist, but again there was no indication in their records as to any examination of that particular part of his body.

Following the Petitioner's release from St. John's Mercy Medical Center, Petitioner explained he noticed the development of red blisters around the area from the donor site (left thigh) and around the grafted areas. On August 14, 2003, Dr. Coin noted Petitioner had a rash around the grafted areas that consisted of small red blisters. He prescribed Benadryl. He told Petitioner not to wear splints.

When Petitioner returned to see Dr. Coin on August 19, 2003, he noted Petitioner's wounds had improved and his rash had improved. Eucrin creme was ordered.

On September 3, 2003, Dr. Coin noted the wounds in the donor site looked good and he ordered physical therapy for the Petitioner. By September 15, 2003, Petitioner was released to return to work on a light duty basis, and did so.

Following his return to work, he continued to follow up with Dr. Coin. When he saw Dr. Coin on October 8, 2003, the doctor noted the wounds looked good and he was prescribed Naprosyn and released to return to work on a full duty basis. Petitioner testified that he did return to work as a general mechanic at that time.

He returned to see Dr. Coin on December 16, 2003. Dr. Coin noted that all of his wounds were well healed, that he had reached maximum medical improvement and released him from his care.

Petitioner returned to see Dr. Coin for an unscheduled visit on February 5, 2004. He testified that he had noticed warmth and swelling of a significant degree to his left elbow. He also noticed red blisters on his right upper extremity and left thigh. He stated that these symptoms had come on quite suddenly. He denied sustaining any further injuries to any parts of his body since he had last seen Dr. Coin.

Dr. Coin's records note Petitioner returned to see him on February 5, 2004 due to problems with his left elbow that began 24-48 hours before his visit. He stated that he may have hit his left elbow on a shelf at the storeroom at work, but could not recall specifically. Dr. Coin reviewed a note from the Respondent's medical department dated February 4, 2004, indicating that the Petitioner had redness and swelling in his left elbow.

Petitioner told Dr. Coin that 48 hours before this visit, he did not have any problems with his left elbow. Petitioner told him that he had "red welts" over the area of the recipient site of the right hand, wrist and forearm and the donor site of the left thigh. Physical examination by Dr. Coin noted that the Petitioner had blister-like areas over the right wrist and forearm region that appeared subjacent to the recipient graft sites. He also had similar areas over the donor site of the left anterior thigh. The left elbow showed warmth and redness over the elbow with extension into the upper arm and into the lower arm. He noted that x-rays of the left elbow showed slight degenerative changes and olecranon spurring. The doctor recommended that he be admitted immediately to St. John's Mercy Medical Center. He also contacted Dr. David Janssen, an infectious disease specialist, for evaluation.

Q-DEX

Petitioner was admitted to St. John's Mercy Medical Center on the same date. At the time of the admission, it was noted that he was taking Glucophage for control of his diabetes. Examination ! revealed redness throughout the elbow and slight tenderness over the olecranon bursa with some vesicles in the left anterior thigh and right arm. He was placed on Vancomycin, Clindamycin and Acyclovir.

An MRI was performed of the left elbow on February 6, 2004 that showed cellulitis and osteomyelitis of the proximal radius and multiple soft-tissue abscesses of the left elbow: An orthopedic surgeon, Dr. John Tessier, was consulted. He drained an abscess from the elbow that grew staphylococcus aureus. It was sensitive to all antibiotics. Therefore, a PlCC line was installed for the administration of Ancef (an antibiotic). A bone biopsy was taken during the course of this surgery by Dr. Tessier and it was negative for osteomyelitis.

Dr. Janssen, the infectious disease specialist, noted Petitioner had one large vesicular lesion in the area of the left thigh and numerous vesicular lesions in the right forearm. He said that each lesion was composed of multiple separate vesicles. The Petitioner had testified that he had several large blisters in those areas at the time of this admission. Dr. Janssen diagnosed Petitioner's conditions as cellulitis of the left elbow, vesicular eruptions and status post-burn injuries.

Dr. Alexis Lansing examined Petitioner for his diabetes and diagnosed his condition as diabetes mellitus, type 11, which had been diagnosed about one year before this admission. She examined his right arm and noted that there were several, large, irregularly shaped bullous type lesions that appeared to be filled with a clear liquid. In a drawing completed by the emergency room physician upon admission to the hospital, an area of redness and swelling extending from above the elbow to below the lefl elbow was noted, along with multiple blisters on the top of the right hand and distal right forearm and one or two blisters on the front of the left thigh.

By February 10, 2004, Dr. Janssen noted that the "blisters" on his right forearm had healed. The Petitioner was discharged on February 11, 2004 and was told to continue with the intravenous antibiotics. He was to follow up with Dr. Coin, Dr. Tessier and Dr. Janssen.

In Dr. Coin's medical records, he noted that on or about February 11, 2004 he spoke with Dr. Byler by telephone with regard to the patient's treatment, recovery and history. It was noted that he was to direct a letter to the doctor addressing potential issues regarding causation.

Petitioner did return to see Dr. Coin on February 24, 2004, who noted that his left elbow was slightly swollen and the lesions previously seen on his extremity had regressed. He noted Petitioner was to be placed on work restrictions per Dr. Tessier. On the same date, Dr. Coin prepared a letter to Dr. Keith Byler regarding his care or treatment to the Petitioner beginning on February 5, 2004. He noted that when he re-examined Petitioner, Petitioner emphasized that he thought that he injured his left elbow in July, 2003 at the time of the initial steam burn. Dr. Coin opined that without a specific history of an injury to the left elbow at the time of the initial event, it was possible that activity at work or activity outside of work may have been the precipitating factor with regard to the onset of his left elbow symptoms that led to his admission on February 5, 2004. The doctor further noted that Petitioner could have had, and likely did have, some olecranon bursa1 cysts. He also stated that it was likely that because of a crack in the skin, normal staph bacteria may have invaded this area. He

Q-DEX

further noted that because of the Petitioner's diabetes, he had a much lower threshold than normal to have this become "super infected" and develop into an abscess. i

Petitioner was off work from February 5, 2004 until March 12, 2004, when Dr Tessier released him to return to work on a light duty basis. He noted that both Dr Coin and Dr Janssen released him from their care on March 25, 2004 and that he had not seen those physicians since that tlme

Petitioner testified he had talked to the company nurse on occasion since his treatment in February and March 2004 about the skin on his graft being sensitive and about continued "bumps" in the area of the donor site for the skin graft and the skin graft areas themselves.

In March 2004, Petitioner was examined at Respondent's request by Dr. Paul L'Ecuyer. Dr. L'Ecuyer testified on behalf of the Respondent through a deposition. It was his testimony Petitioner was suffering from septic olecranon bursitis upon admission to St. John's Mercy Medical Center in February 2004. On direct examination, Dr. L'Ecuyer testified he did not believe there was a relationship between the development of that condition of ill being and the Petitioner's accident of July 24, 2003. He stated that he did not see any signs of a skin disorder or other indication of an ongoing process due to infection by a staphylococcus bacteria from August 2003 until February 2004. He did testify that anytime there was skin damage, it increased the chance of developing a staphylococcus infection. He also thought there should have been signs of trauma to the left elbow closer in time to the event for there to be a relationship as well. He further explained since Petitioner was diabetic, it could increase his chance for developing an infection because of the reduction in his immunity system.

On cross-examination, Dr. L'Ecuyer noted Petitioner was given Keflex upon discharge from Memorial Hospital in July 2003. He said that Keflex was probably not very good with regard to the control of, or the prevention of, staph infections. He testified that keeping the skin clean would be more important in the control of infection. He said that burn patients ran a high risk of infection because of the extensive nature of the skin loss. He further testified that the bullous lesions described by Dr. Alexis Lansing while the Petitioner was in the hospital in February 2004 could be indicative of a toxin in the staphylococcus strain that infected Petitioner. He further noted that he did state in his report that the Petitioner could have become colonized at the time of his initial burn due to his extensive skin damage or his subsequent prolonged hospitalization. When asked to describe colonization, he meant Petitioner could have become colonized with the bacteria in his skin that subsequently caused an infection. He said that with regard to staph infections, there is a carrier state and that a carriage of staph bacteria will often precede the infection. However, he thought that the period of time from the accident to the development of the olecranon bursitis in the left elbow was too long. He said that Petitioner could have become colonized in July 2003 either due to the burns or due to the hospitalization itself. He thought that the lack of skin infections between August 2003 and February 2004 mitigated against a relationship between any bacterial infection or exposure in July 2003 and the development of the elbow condition. However, he further admitted that a recurrent skin infection following a colonization was not always present in an individual who goes on to develop a staph infection. He explained the absence of such skin infection does not mean that the person does not have a staph infection. It is merely helpful to have a history of recurrent skin infections to imply a colonization.

Q-DEX

He also admitted Petitioner could have had a staphylococcus colonization from July 2003 to February 2004 without any symptoms or findings. The key would be to determine whether or not the colonization that may have incurred in July 2003 was the same strain of bacteria that caused the actual development of the condition of ill being in February 2004. This could be accomplished with genetic testing. However, in this case, there was no genetic testing performed to make that determination. Dr. L'Ecuyer could not determine with any specific accuracy when Petitioner may have become colonized. A person who has been colonized with a staph agent can develop an infection even with a simple abrasion. The reason for this is not known.

Dr. L'Ecuyer testified that he does perform independent medical examinations at the request of employers and insurers and did so in this case. He deemed the burden of proof in Illinois with regard to medical causation as "weak. He stated that, in his report, his opinion was that there was probably not a relationship between the injuries sustained by Petitioner and the staph infection that he developed in February, 2004. Although he testified that, in this case, he thought that it was legally impossible for there to be a relationship between the Petitioner's injuries of July 2003 and the development of the staph infection in February 2004, it was possible to reasonable medical certainty that Petitioner could have had a colonization of staph bacteria in his body before the onset of symptoms in February 2004 and that it did not take a dramatic injury to cause a full-blown staph infection. He said that it certainly happens that an individual may go on to develop a septic bursitis where the prior injury was "trivial".

He further admitted that an individual who was already colonized with a staph bacteria before such a trivial event certainly has the increased risk of developing a staph infection following such a trivial event. He also testified that the development of a staph infection in the left elbow, such as in Petitioner's case, was a particularly common area in which to develop a septic bursitis because it was an easy area to suffer abrasions. He testified that an individual, such as Petitioner, who was a mechanic, would be more susceptible to the type of abrasions that could be such a trivial event as to cause the onset of a full-blown staph infection if they were previously colonized with a staph bacteria. When asked to define the period of time that an individual could go from the time of a colonization to the time of the actual appearance of an infection for there to be a temporal relationship between the colonization and the infection, the doctor testified that he did not know. He said that it could be from within hours to months.

Petitioner testified that, at the time of the hearing, he used creams on h ~ s burned areas and trred to stay out of the sun. He sa~d that the areas that were burned and the area from which the graft were taken were more sensitive than normal. He further testified that although the burns in his abdomen had healed, that part of his body was more sensitive to touch or to pressure than prior to the accident.

Petitioner still has an occasronal outbreak of "pimples" In the areas previously descrrbed and that he does experience some aching and discomfort in the left elbow, particularly after a day of physical activity.

Petitioner denied any further injuries to his body since July 23, 2003. He testified that while he was off work from July 24, 2003 through September 14, 2004 he did receive Workers' Compensation benefits. However, when he was off work from February 5, 2004 through March 11, 2004, he did not

Q-DEX

receive any Workers' Compensation benefits but did receive some type of short-term disability pay from the Respondent.

The Arbitrator personally examined the areas of scaring of Petitioner's right hand, right forearm, left hand and a strip-like area from where the graft was taken of the left thigh. The Petitioner testified that the skin of the left thigh was more sensitive to touch and more sensitive to the effects of sunlight than prior to the injury.

Petitioner did have a prior Workers' Compensation claim involving his right hand and arm in 1997. This resulted in carpal tunnel surgery, medial and lateral tennis elbow and an ulnar nerve release. He settled that prior claim for 17.5% permanent disability to the right hand and 18.48% permanent disability to the right arm.

Therefore, the Arbitrator concludes:

1. Petitioner's current condition of ill being with regard to all of his injuries, including his left elbow, are related to the affects of the accidental injury sustained on July 23, 2003. Certainly, there is no dispute by Respondent as to the relationship of the event of July 23, 2003 and the burns sustained by Petitioner to his abdomen, left hand and forearm, right hand and forearm and the graft area from the left thigh.

The real dispute is whether or not Petitioner's staph infection in the left elbow that required his hospitalization on February 5, 2004 is related to the event of July 23, 2003. It is clear from the facts of this case that the Petitioner was a diabetic at the time of the accident in July 2003. It is also clear Petitioner sustained severe burns to approximately 10% of his body surface that required skin grafting from his left thigh. There is no question that because of these open wounds and the fact Petitioner was hospitalized on two occasions immediately following the event, that he was exposed to the development of an infection by staph bacteria. Further, his diabetic condition, as testified to by Dr. L'Ecuyer, made him more susceptible to the development of a staph infection following his injuries.

Petitioner testified he developed blister-like areas in the site from which the graft was taken and in the site to which the grafts were applied. This is documented by the records of Dr. Coin. Dr. Coin noted in a letter to Dr. Byler that Petitioner likely did have some olecranon bursa1 cysts and that because of a crack in the skin, normal staph bacteria could have invaded his body. Due to the Petitioner's diabetes, this could have become super-infected and developed into an abscess. He also said it was possible that activities at work or activities outside of work may have been the precipitating factor for the development of this infection.

Although Dr. L'Ecuyer testified on direct examination that it was his opinion that it was legally impossible for there to be a relationship between the events of July 2003 and the development of the staph infection that exhibited itself in February, 2004, on cross-examination he admitted that he had no specific opinion regarding the length of time that an individual could become colonized with a staph bacteria and the time that the infection might become symptomatic. He further admitted Petitioner could have become colonized with a staph bacteria due to the burns themselves or due to the admission to the hospital following his burns in July and August 2003.

Q-DEX

- - He further admitted that a trivial event, such as bumping one's elbow, could have triggered the onset of a full-blown staph infection in an individual who had been previously colonized by staph bacteria. He also testified that the elbow was a common place for such staph infections to exhibit themselves, particularly with individuals who might be susceptible to abrading those areas. He also classified the Illinois Workers' Compensation burden of proof with regard to medical causation as "weak.

Based upon the testimony of the Petitioner, the medical records offered into evidence and the testimony of Dr. L'Ecuyer, the Arbitrator finds that the Petitioner's accident of July 23, 2003 might have been or could have been a cause or one of the causes of the condition of ill being, namely the staph infection, that exhibited itself and led to his hospitalization in February 2004.

Specifically, the Arbitrator finds Petitioner could have become colonized with a staph bacteria due to the burns that he sustained and/or due to the hospitalizations he incurred after the burns; that he did show signs of blisters or skin abnormalities in the graft area and in the grafted areas following his discharge from Memorial Hospital and St. John's Mercy Medical Center as documented by Dr. Coin; and that he was diabetic, thus lowering the ability of his immune system to fight off an infection. Given the fact that Dr. L'Ecuyer could not identify a specific time table for which an infection caused by a staph bacteria could reasonably exhibit itself from the time of colonization to the time of infection, the Arbitrator finds that the passage of time from July 2003 to February 2004 is certainly not such an extravagant length of time as to prove that there was not a relationship between the event and the infection.

2. Petitioner was temporary totally disabled from July 24, 2003 through September 14, 2003 and from February 5, 2004 through March 11, 2004

Respondent shall be given credit towards said award for payments made totaling $4,768.26. Further, the Respondent shall be given credit for net payments Petitioner may have received for any short term disability program or other disability program provided by Respondent during the period of time Petitioner was off work from February 5, 2004 through March 11, 2004.

3. Respondent shall pay the medical expenses as listed in Petitioner's Exhibit 8-11 totaling $32,318.50. As these bills were incurred prior to February 1, 2006, they shall be paid in their entirety. However, the Arbitrator notes that the parties stipulated that if Respondent was found to be responsible for said medical expenses, that said expenses would be paid at fair and reasonable amounts for like services rendered in the medical community at the time that they were incurred.

4. As a result of the accident of July 23, 2003, Petitioner sustained 2% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole under Section 8(d)(2) of the Act due to the burns to the Petitioner's abdomen; a 10% permanent partial disability to the left arm under Section 8(e)(10) of the Act; a 5% permanent partial disability to the left leg under Section 8(e)(12) of the Act and 30 weeks of disfigurement to the Petitioner's right hand and right forearm.

Q-DEX