1. What was the issue with Mary Kay Stanford and her doctors that was so significant?

2. What impact do you think the cruise and horseback riding video had on the case?

3. If evidence harms a party’s case is it biased and therefore must be withheld?

Mary Kay Stanford (Stanford) was driving a truck for V.F. in late evening of February 7, 2006, when she began to feel nauseous. She pulled into a truck scale house to rest for the evening. She parked the truck, and as she attempted to climb into the sleeper compartment, she tripped over a cooler. Stanford fell into the sleeper compartment and hit her head on the bed rail; the fall knocked her unconscious. Stanford’s husband, William Stanford, who was riding with her, attempted to revive her. After she regained consciousness, William offered to take her to the emergency room. Stanford declined and decided to stay in the sleeper compartment and rest until morning. Stanford contacted V.F. dispatch and made the notifications to the company about her injury. The company arranged for the two to return home. 

On February 8, 2006, Mary Kay went to Dr. Allie Prater whose notes reflect that Stanford’s chief complaints were blackouts, syncope, and slurred speech. Stanford told Dr. Prater that her symptoms had begun one week prior to her visit. Dr. Prater’s notes do not mention Stanford’s fall in the truck or that she was knocked unconscious. Dr. Prater diagnosed Stanford with benign essential hypertension and ordered blood tests, an ultrasound, and a brain MRI. 

Dr. Prater referred Mary Kay to Dr. Glenn Crosby, a neurosurgeon. Before seeing Dr. Crosby, Stanford went to Dr. Johnny Mitias, an orthopedic surgeon, on March 15, 2006. There was no mention of her fall in Dr. Mitias’s notes. In fact, he noted that “[t]here was no injury that started this.” Dr. Mitias diagnosed Stanford with right sciatica and ordered physical therapy. Dr. Crosby recommended and performed spinal surgeries on August 8, 2006. After surgery, Stanford began complaining of pain in her left buttock and down her left leg. 

Dr. Crosby ordered a lumbar MRI, which revealed a large rupture of the lumbar spine at L4. On November 28, 2006, Dr. Crosby performed a diskectomy at the L4 level. Dr. Crosby’s notes indicate that Stanford “had a fall this past year” that may have aggravated her back. However, Dr. Crosby’s notes do not mention that Stanford suffered a fall at work until her follow-up visit with Dr. Crosby on May 30, 2008. Dr. Crosby testified that prior to that visit, Stanford had not disclosed any history of an accident at work. However, he testified that the problems with her neck and back were probably related to her work injury. 

A hearing was held before an administrative judge (AJ), who denied Stanford’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits. There was evidence submitted at the hearing that Stanford had taken a cruise despite her medical issues. In addition, there was video of her riding horses during the time of her treatment. There were also videos of Stanford at parties and bars. In one video she appeared to be having a great time as a judge in a “hairy chest contest.” Stanford appealed the AJ’s decision to the Commission, which affirmed the AJ’s decision. Stanford appealed the Commission’s decision to the Circuit Court of Union County, and the circuit court affirmed the Commission’s decision denying benefits. Stanford then appealed. 

JUDICIAL OPINION

IRVING, P. J., for the Court … Stanford argues that the AJ demonstrated bias in favor of V.F. and its insurance carrier by affording greater weight to certain witnesses and evidence. Specifically, she contends that the AJ should not have accepted the testimony of Sally Jo Rupley, who was also employed by V.F. Rupley testified that she had gone on a cruise with Stanford in April 2006. Rupley stated that, during the cruise, she did not observe Stanford having trouble with her back, neck, or any other parts of her body. In fact, Rupley testified that she witnessed Stanford go horseback riding during the cruise.  

Stanford argues that Rupley’s testimony was biased given that she was an employee of V.F. and that the AJ erred in accepting her testimony. Rupley admitted that her supervisor had requested that she appear at the hearing to testify; however, Rupley denied that anyone at V.F. had threatened or coerced her in exchange for her testimony. We fail to see how allowing Rupley to testify demonstrates bias on the part of the AJ, especially where the AJ also permitted the testimonies of Stanford’s husband, relatives, and friends. 

Additionally, Stanford contends that the AJ placed undue emphasis on the fact that Stanford went on a cruise two months after her alleged work-related injury. V.F. introduced a video taken during the cruise into evidence that depicted Stanford riding a horse and judging a “hairy chest” contest. Again, we fail to find bias on the AJ’s part, especially where the video was just one piece of evidence considered by the AJ in rendering her decision. ……………………………………….