Harris v Australian Community Support Organisation Ltd
[2023] VCC 1128
•28 June 2023
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT Melbourne COMMON LAW DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Serious Injury List
Case No. CI-20-05602
| MICHELLE LISA HARRIS | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY SUPPORT ORGANISATION LTD | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE PILLAY | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | Tuesday 27 June 2023 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | Oral judgment delivered on 28 June 2023 Revised judgment | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Harris v Australian Community Support Organisation Ltd | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VCC 1128 | |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
---
Subject:ACCIDENT COMPENSATION
Catchwords: Serious injury – lower back injury – whether claimed injury is a permanent injury – whether claimed condition is to be characterised as temporary flare up of degenerative changes – whether plaintiff can aggregate consequences with subsequent flare ups
Legislation Cited: Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013
Cases Cited:RJ Gilbertsons Pty Ltd v Skorsis (2000) 12 VR 386
Judgment: Application granted
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr B. Johnson | Abbey Injury Law Pty Ltd |
| For the Defendant | Ms K. Bradey | IDP Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:[1]
[1]The footnotes of the Plaintiff’s Court Book in this document refer to the pagination on the non-searchable version of the Plaintiff’s Court Book which was filed on 26 June 2023.
1Michelle Harris makes application for a determination that she has sustained a serious injury arising from a back injury sustained during the course of her employment on 11 February 2014. Her claim is limited to seeking a determination for pain and suffering only. The defendant argues there has been no permanent injury caused in that 2014 event; rather, that there has been simply a temporary flare-up of underlying degenerative changes not dissimilar to those which occurred in 2007 and 2011 and also subsequently to 2014. The defendant further argues that even if a permanent injury can be isolated to the date of 11 February 2014, the impairment consequences of that injury are not more than significant or marked. Particularly it argues that the Plaintiff cannot aggregate the impairment consequences from the 2015, and 2016 flare-ups which remain extant. Furthermore the defendant argues that the Plaintiff’s subsequent injuries to her neck and right arm and their consequences must be excluded in the ultimate assessment of whether a serious injury has been occasioned.
Relevant history
2Michelle Harris was born in December 1973. She completed Year 10 aged sixteen. She fell pregnant then with her first child and gave birth shortly after. Between 1992 and about 2000 she was in an abusive relationship with Mr David King living in Ballarat. During this time she had three children. She sustained injury in a motor vehicle accident in February 2000. She fractured her left patella and had surgery. She had a further minor motor vehicle accident in 2004. Relevant to this proceeding, she sustained an acute episode of lower back pain in August 2007. In cross-examination she accepted that her pain at this time was severe and had persisted for several months which led to her seeking treatment. Her affidavit deposes that she had an x‑ray which recorded no abnormality. She deposed to having a period of physiotherapy and the pain lessening almost immediately.[2]
[2]Plaintiff’s Court Book (“PCB”) 17
3She had periods working variously as a waitress and other casual work, but in 2008 she started as a family violence support worker in Shepparton. Immediately thereafter she moved with her family to Warrnambool in 2009. She obtained work at the Emma House Domestic Violence Centre. She worked as an intake worker doing administration and reception work. She worked there for 3 years between 2009 and 2012. In 2010 she had an episode of back pain and had 1 day off. Her evidence was of pain only lasting a couple of days. She could not recall taking any medication.
4In March 2011 she was playing backyard cricket when she aggravated her back. She deposed to seeing a chiropractor (some 6 times), had x‑rays, consulted her treating doctor, and was given Panadeine Forte.[3] She deposed that the x‑ray was normal. In cross-examination she could not recall having to take any time off work but guessed that it may have been a few days.
[3]PCB 17 and Defendant’s Amended Court Book (DCB) 80
5In December 2013 she gave evidence in cross-examination of being dropped into a pool by her children and had some back pain. A doctor's note showed she went to the doctor but her evidence was of no time off work.
6In 2013 she commenced a course in community services through Holmesglen TAFE. She finished that and was immediately employed by the Department of Justice at Corrections Victoria. She was employed as a Corrections Officer initially.
7Within a short period of time she was employed as a forensic gap practitioner. This was a new position. It was to assist people with intellectual disability and acquired brain injury in their interactions with the criminal justice system. In this role she had to assist such people addressing housing issues, poor mental health, and drug and alcohol addiction, for example. This required her to be out and about in the community assisting clients, often at their properties. To do this she spent a considerable period of time each day in her car.
8It was in this capacity that she sustained the injury on 11 February 2014. At that time she was with another worker attending at a client flat. They were in the process of cleaning up when Ms Harris had to lift up a double mattress so the other worker could check underneath. As she lifted up and held the mattress in place, Ms Harris felt pain in her low back. She deposed to telling the other worker but then continuing on with her day.
9Afterwards her pain increased, and she called an osteopath, Ms Connie Petousis. She made a WorkCover claim. She saw Ms Petousis the next day and thereafter at least once per week until April 2014. Her symptoms had some resolution and she ceased seeing Ms Petousis until August 2014 when she returned about once per fortnight again. It appears that she saw Ms Petousis some 25 times over the course of that year, as well as consulting with her treating doctor, Dr Darren So of the East Bentleigh Medical Clinic. She variously took Mobic, Panadeine Forte and Tramadol on prescription from her doctor.
10Despite the ongoing need for treatment and medication after a short period of time she returned to work as a forensic gap worker. In February 2015 she in fact increased her workload from 0.6 to 0.8 full-time.
11In May 2015 she had the onset of increasing low back pain. She put in a WorkCover claim. She was taken to notes about this event which it was suggested showed she had aggravated her pain from lifting a child. I will return to this issue.
12
She saw Ms Petousis some 16 times over the next year and continued on with her medication.[4] She was also getting prescription pain medication from
Dr So.
[4]PCB 14, PCB 137-141
13On 7 April 2016 she was at work and in the work vehicle when she reached to put her seat-belt on. She deposes that the twisting action caused a flare-up of her back pain.[5] She went off work. During this time, however, she put in a further WorkCover claim. That claim was accepted and she was placed onto weekly payments. She continued to see Dr Petousis.
[5]PCB 20
14Towards the end of that year her weekly payments were terminated. In addition, her employer, armed with a report of occupational physician Dr Philip Haynes which opined that she could not perform her old job, proposed to terminate her on the basis that she could not perform the inherent requirements of her job, that is, the driving duties. Her solicitor intervened and sought a return to work in a different position which would accommodate the limitations imposed by her back injury. Those entreaties were successful, and the plaintiff returned to work as a choices coordinator, initially in a part-time role.
15The role of a choices coordinator was an office-based position. It was different to the forensic gap coordinator’s position, in that she was no longer dealing in a hands-on way with different clients. Rather, she was office-based, and would make a variety of phone calls from there to make arrangements for clients. She did not have to drive to client premises to perform cleaning-up work or to appointments with clients.
16In 2017 she attended at the Victorian Rehabilitation Centre and was taught a program of home-based activities to help with her back condition. She deposes to continuing with these activities daily today. In 2019 she began seeing a naturopath, Ms Manser, and has seen her irregularly since then for her back condition.
17In 2019 she developed neck and right arm pain. She was placed onto Mobic and Tramadol for that and had a CT scan.[6]
[6]PCB 19
18In December 2019 she saw an orthopaedic surgeon, Mr Roy Carey, on behalf of the defendant insurer for an impairment benefit assessment. He took a history of constant low back pain into the left buttock. He considered that she had “classical left S1 radicular sensory alteration”.[7] He considered the history of the back pain preceding 2014 and considered that there was no apportionment necessary to account for those earlier aggravations. He considered that the work injury from 2014 remained the dominant cause of her symptoms.
[7] PCB 104
19On 18 March 2020 a Medical Panel Opinion was obtained in respect of her permanent whole person impairment for the purposes of section 98C Accident Compensation Act 1985.[8] The Medical Panel reasons concluded that Ms Harris was suffering from persisting mechanical symptoms and low grade dysfunction of the lumbar spine, as a consequence of soft tissue injury on a background of low grade degenerative lumbar spondylosis with intermittent symptoms in the left leg, but without definitive features of radiculopathy relevant to the accepted lower back injury.[9] The Medical Panel was aware of the low back condition prior to 2014. They considered that her current symptoms were all related to the 2014 incident.
[8]The equivalent provision of s98C Accident Compensation Act 1985 is s211 Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, which applies to the Plaintiff in this proceeding.
[9]PCB 87
20Shortly after that time the plaintiff swore her first affidavit in this proceeding on 3 August 2020. She deposed to having constant low back pain but with an amelioration of her left leg pain. She deposed to having problems with sitting, standing or walking for longer periods of time, with aggravations with certain activities such as twisting. She deposed to having to take Panadeine Forte, 4 to 8 per week.
21She saw Dr Rodney Simm, an orthopaedic surgeon, for the defendant in April 2021. He considered that her 2014 injury was not a causative factor of her current symptoms which were simply the result of underlying degenerative changes.
22In July 2021 she made a WorkCover claim for her arm and neck condition which had been diagnosed as carpal tunnel syndrome of the right side. The claim was accepted and she went off work for a period.
23In August 2021 she swore her second affidavit, which was largely similar to her first, and deposed to a variety of impairment consequences. Relevantly, however, she did indicate that her left leg pain had returned. That said, she was taking Lyrica, Panadol Osteo and Tramadol in part for her arm symptoms and also her low back.
24Between July 2021 and February 2022 she remained off work in respect of carpal tunnel syndrome and her neck problems.
25She saw Mr Michael Dooley, orthopaedic specialist, on behalf of her solicitors in December 2022.[10] He considered that she had and was suffering from the ongoing consequences of the aggravation of her underlying degenerative condition. He considered this to be organic in nature and to have been a significant aggravation caused by the events of 2014.[11]
[10]PCB 117
[11]PCB 120
26She saw Dr Graeme Doig, orthopaedic specialist, on behalf of the defendant, in April 2023. He took a history where he alleged that she had denied a past medical history of lower back pain prior to 2014. In his further report of May 2023 he opined that if the 2011 back pain did not settle down after the event then he was unsure of her current diagnosis or the contribution of the 2014 events.
27She is currently seeing a physiotherapist, Mr Moseley. He opines that she has improved her condition over the last 12 months.
28The plaintiff’s third and final affidavit was sworn on 26 May 2023. She deposed to taking Osteomol, Valium and Mobic for her lumbar back pain. She deposed to the resolution of the neck and arm conditions. She deposed to being clear to work as of 7 July 2023.
Issues
29The first issue in the case is as to whether the plaintiff has sustained an injury on 11 February 2014. The defendant’s position is that on that date a flare-up of the underlying condition occurred which has now resolved, leaving the plaintiff to suffer from the effects of the degenerative changes in her back. In support of that argument the defendant relies on the opinion of Dr Simm and Dr Doig.
30I would reject the defendant’s argument. The first reason for this is the character of the events on 11 February 2014 which stand in contrast to the effects of both the 2007 and 2011 events in particular. The 2007 event was of an extremely limited nature. The radiology was reported as normal.[12] There was no ongoing course of medication, and the physiotherapy treatment was extremely limited. The 2011 event was similar. She saw her treating doctor and had a limited prescription of Panadeine Forte. She saw a chiropractor for a short period of time. X-ray was of minor disc space narrowing and osteophytes only.[13] Most importantly in respect of this episode, though, is that she returned to work very quickly and worked normally.
[12]PCB 87
[13]Ibid
31The February 2014 incident was much more significant. She had pain during the course of work which was so bad that she had to leave work and go and see an osteopath. That osteopathic treatment was required every week for the first 2 months. It is true that she did break the treatment from April to October 2014 but she then returned to it and required it consistently over the next 18 months. This speaks to the chronicity of the problem. In support of that fact is that she had ongoing strong prescription medication over that next year. This allowed her to return to work almost immediately but she continued to use the medication and it was required so that she could remain at work. In addition the radiology showed an L4‑5 disc protrusion but with no neurological compression.[14] As the defendant’s counsel put it – there was advancing radiology.
[14]PCB 103
32Altogether this significant change in the radiology, requirement for treatment, and medication are all reflective of the seriousness of the aggravation.
33Secondly, the medico-legal reporting largely supports the finding that the 2014 incident caused a permanent injury. Leaving aside the early medico-legal reporting of occupational physicians Dr Clark and Dr Haynes in 2016 – who were focused on occupational capacity, Dr Carey, the orthopaedic surgeon, as I have indicated above, thought that after his clinical review that there was now a classical S1 radicular alteration indicating a permanent injury. The Medical Panel made a similar finding of persisting mechanical symptoms and low grade dysfunction of the lumbar spine;[15] so too did Mr Dooley. It was said that these doctors did not have a proper appreciation of the Plaintiff’s medical history, particularly the events surrounding the 2007, 2010, 2011 and 2013 events, which suggested aggravation, that is, the need for medication, physiotherapy and time off work. Starting with Mr Carey. He has a history of the earlier events but not those of 2010 and 2013.[16] The Medical Panel had the same history.[17] Mr Dooley had the Plaintiff’s first affidavit and a raft of materials which went to the pre 2014 state of her back. He specifically mentioned considering this in formulating his opinion.[18] It can be seen that none of them had the history of the 2010 or 2013 events. However, given these were extremely brief episodes with no ongoing course of treatment or substantial time off work I do not consider these matters of such relevance so as to undermine the force of the opinions of these doctors. I would accept that body of evidence from Dr Carey, the Medical Panel and Dr Dooley.
[15]PCB 87
[16]PCB 88 and PCB 92
[17]PCB 92
[18]PCB 121
34I would not accept Mr Simm’s opinion. It is based on the assumption that the February 2014 injury was a minor back strain. I have found that that event was significantly different in quality than those occurring in 2007, 2010, 2011 or the 2013 event. This is for the reasons set out above in regard to the change in medication regime, the need for prolonged treatment and the Plaintiff’s evidence that the pain was of a chronic nature as opposed to that which she previously had. This is supported by Ms Petousis' recording that the pain from 2014 onward was “chronic”.[19] Given I have found against this central assumption of Mr Simm it follows that his conclusion based on this assumption is flawed and cannot be accepted.
[19] PCB 137 and PCB 141
35As to Dr Doig, his opinion is somewhat unclear. The first point he seems to make is that Ms Harris did not disclose the pre-existing low back injuries from 2007 and 2011. Dr Doig had letters of instruction and clinical doctors’ notes which referred to both those incidents. Furthermore it is difficult to understand why Ms Harris would give such a history, given that she had already sworn an affidavit in which she deposed in great detail to these matters. Overall I cannot accept that the Plaintiff has deliberately misled Dr Doig. Nevertheless, Dr Doig’s opinion appears to be that there has been an aggravation of a pre-existing problem as a result of the incident of February 2014 in his first report.[20]
[20]DCB 40
36Dr Doig then called for the radiology from 2007 and 2011. He also called for clarification from the treating doctor as to her recovery from both these episodes. He was then provided with chiropractic notes in respect of the 2011 incident which showed the chiropractic treatment had ceased during the period 28 March 2011 and 15 April 2011. He also was provided with plain x‑rays of the lower back dated 29 March 2011 which he considered revealed a minor lumbar scoliosis with early degeneration at the L4‑5 level. He then opined that if he assumed the 2011 condition failed to fully settle, that the 2014 event was most likely a symptomatic exacerbation. He went on to opine, however, that it was impossible for him to opine retrospectively if the incident of February 2014 has continued to materially contribute to the incapacity.
37The evidence I have accepted is that the condition of 2011 did fully settle, as evidenced by the limited chiropractic treatment, the short course of medication, the plaintiff’s return to full-time work, and the plaintiff’s affidavit material. Given this, it is unclear what Dr Doig’s opinion would be. In its current state it is not definitive one way or another, and certainly could not be said to support the defendant’s case. Overall I place no weight on Dr Doig’s opinion.
38Putting that to one side, then, it can be seen that Mr Simm’s opinion is clearly isolated amongst a whole range of opinion being the Medical Panel, Dr Dooley, and also Dr Carey. This is another reason I do not accept it.
39Thirdly, I accept the plaintiff as a witness of truth. It is notable that all doctors in this case indicate that she was a sensible and genuine historian who did not embellish. Her affidavits were detailed to the point of being overly dense. However, they were comprehensive.
40It was submitted that on a number of fronts her evidence should not be believed. The first was as to how her evidence of physical limitations could be believed as accurate given video surveillance which was shown of the Plaintiff taking down curtains and loading a car on 21 July 2016 as she was moving house. The range of activities shown was said to be evidence that her affidavits as to her physical capacity to bend lift and twist was inaccurate. I first note that the video was taken on 1 day from 7 years ago, its use given the Court is assessing the matter as today is of limited value. The second matter to note is that the video shows the Plaintiff holding her back for a period, taking tablets and also wearing a back brace. In re-examination she said all these things were because of her pain. She gave evidence that the tablets were pain medication which she took to get through the day, on top of earlier tablets she had taken.
41When it was suggested that she should have just got her children to do it the Plaintiff explained that the rental accommodation was for her and her family, that she was trying to provide a roof over the heads of her family. That on being told to leave earlier in the year she had fought the eviction at VCAT and gained an extension of time. However, on this day she had run out of money and she had watched her sons work for 4 days and felt compelled to help. She said it was the last day that they could be in that house and it was work that just had to be done. It was a story that was frank and open and I consider bore testament to the efforts she has made over many years to support her family in difficult times. Overall it was a rational explanation for why she did the work, despite being in pain, having to wear a back brace and take medication. Overall the video, I consider, did not show the Plaintiff working in a manner grossly inconsistent with what she had deposed to.
42It must also be said that the Plaintiff gave evidence in an entirely honest way. She accepted treating doctor notes from the past, on which her memory was poor. She made numerous concessions against interest. For example in her third affidavit she deposed to having an improved ability to play pool with her partner. In cross-examination she conceded that she was thrown into a pool which triggered the 2013 flare-up. When taken to the Goulburn Valley Health notes recording that the 2007 pain was 9/10 and was severe, she accepted that that was the case but then went on to explain that her assessment of the pain scale had now changed given the chronicity of her pain is much worse. All this supports my finding that she was a witness of truth. I accept her evidence save for on one matter immediately below.
43She was also taken to her affidavit which deposed that she had no criminal convictions. At the commencement of the trial she had amended that to depose to having several convictions from driving offences. Her evidence was that she had not thought her driving offences resulted in a criminal conviction. This is, with respect, difficult to accept given that she had accepted having been to Court at times and on one occasion being disqualified for 10 months. I consider this an overreach in her affidavit material on this point alone, which is of marginal relevance as it does not go to the diagnosis or impairment consequences.
44Drawing all that material together I find that the injury in 2014 was a significant aggravation of her underlying condition. I accept the definition of the Medical Panel in terms of identifying that injury and set out earlier. It follows that this injury set the Plaintiff on an entirely different path in terms of her underlying condition. The flare-ups of 2015 and 2016 I find are the natural result of this change in the course of the Plaintiff’s condition. They do not constitute separate injuries. On this point I find that she did not injure her back in 2015 by reason of lifting a child out of a car. Rather, I find that was a historical suspicion that she had which was not confirmed by any other doctor, or the chronology of the unfolding of her pain at that time. I reject the Defendant’s argument on this front. I make this finding relying on the medical opinions I have accepted from the Medical Panel, Mr Carey and Dr Dooley. In addition the change in medication and treatment regime also support that finding in conjunction with the Plaintiff’s evidence of a substantial change and worsening of her condition after 2014. The notes of Ms Petousis and Dr So also support that finding.
45Having accepted that she sustained a permanent injury to the lumbar spine arising from the February 2014 incident, I am required by RJ Gilbertsons Pty Ltd v Skorsis (2000) 12 VR 386 to identify the condition of the lumbar spine prior to 2014 and its impairment consequences. I find that the Plaintiff suffered from degeneration of the lumbar spine. This occasionally flared up but required only a few days off work, medication for a short period in the nature of Panadeine Forte or the like and a few sessions of chiropractic or physiotherapy treatment. I find that the condition did not limit her occupationally, domestically or recreationally save for the short self-limiting episodes surrounding each of those flare-ups. I find that after the flare-up resolved after a short period the Plaintiff could function entirely normally.
46
It is necessary to say something about the right arm and neck condition which developed in 2019. She ceased work in July 2021 and resumed on 13 February 2022 by reason of the right arm and neck pain. She then went off work from 18 August 2022 to 27 February 2023 for psychological issues. On 15 May 2023 she went onto carers leave for her son. She has been cleared to return to her
full-time choices coordinator role as of 3 July 2023 on full-time duties. It is necessary to ensure that the impairment consequences claimed relate only to the claimed low back injury. I consider that I have done that below and this task is made clear given the Plaintiff has been off medication, and all treatment for the right arm and neck injury for almost 6 months.[21]
[21]DCB 87
47Now turning to assess the impairment consequences from the 2014 injury. Overall I record my finding that I consider that the impairment consequences are more than significant or marked. That is for the following reasons.
48First, she has had to give up her position as a forensic gap worker. This was a position which she had applied for and obtained in 2013. It is a position which gave her great joy and meaning in her life. She deposes to this. It is uncontroversial that she has lost the ability to pursue this path. Her employer’s letter terminating her employment because she could not meet the inherent requirements of that position makes that clear. It is true that this only occurred in April 2016 after the flare-up of pain in the seat belt incident. However, given the reporting of Dr So and Ms Petousis on the chronic condition which they began treating in 2014, the ongoing need for pain medication and treatment, this was a natural consequence which came home in April 2016. Not to be deterred, however, and to her credit, she assumed a position as a choices coordinator. That is work she can do which allows her to be productive and involved. However, it is not the position she wanted and which she loved. The narrowing of her occupational careers is a significant factor in weighing her impairment consequences. Furthermore she gave evidence that even in her current job which is desk-based she sets a timer and is required to go off and stretch at regular intervals. That speaks to the chronicity of her problem and the interruption it causes to her life on a daily basis.
49I also record my finding that the Plaintiff’s history reveals someone who has admirably faced challenges and sought to get on with her life. She has fought through a history of domestic violence, raised 4 children – one with a disability and retrained. She then took up a position she loved as a forensic gap worker. When that was denied to her by reason of her injury, her employer sought to terminate her. In that situation it was that she raised the prospect of alternative work with her employer and then took up the choices coordinator position. She remains keen to perform that work up to this day but needing to do constant stretching, using a back brace and with medication. I consider that she is the classical stoic plaintiff who has soldiered on as best she could.
50Second, she has pain in her low back at a level between 2 and 7 out of 10 which is ever-present. She has left leg pain on occasion. She has ceased medication for the right arm and neck problems. To deal with her low back pain she takes Osteomol 4 per day, Valium 1-2 per week and Mobic for flare-ups which result in severe pain occasionally.[22] That pain interrupts her sleep regularly when she feels that her back is in spasm.[23] She does regular hydrotherapy and physiotherapy. As I have said, she sets a timer to ensure that she stretches regularly during work hours.
[22]PCB 51, at paragraph [23]
[23]PCB 41, at paragraph [22], PCB 50 at paragraph [20]
51Third, the limitations imposed by her back injury extend not just to her occupation but also to the way that she lives her life. For example, she has had to move home to a flat with no garden, as she struggles to do the gardening. She is worried by her ability to lift her recently born grandchild. This is a real concern for her as she has four children of her own and each of them has a partner. However, she has difficulties with household tasks. She needs to use a massage chair and heat packs daily to cope. She gave evidence of having her partner help with heavier tasks at home.
52It is also necessary, of course, to assess what she has retained. She has been able to go on holiday and has re-partnered. She has been able to return to playing pool on a semi-regular basis with her partner. Her current physiotherapist considers she has made good progress in the last 2 years. She can work and uses public transport. She is independent in her activities of daily living.
53Balancing all those matters, however, I consider that the Plaintiff has sustained a serious injury for the following reasons:
· The narrowing of her work capacity to deprive her of an occupation she loved;
· The effect of constant pain requiring strong medication daily and more with prescription medication for flare-ups;
· The constant regular interruption of her sleep;
· The need for ongoing physiotherapy and hydrotherapy;
· The fact that she has lived with this condition since 2014 and the chronicity of the underlying condition with its very significant flare-ups, such as 2015 and 2016 which have required repeated time off work;
· Her limitations on driving, lifting, sitting and bending which have affected her social pursuits such as going out to dinner or the movies.
54Given the above I will grant the Plaintiff’s application. I will hear the parties as to further orders.
0
2
0