Full title: Karen GENTLE, Plaintiff, v. KOHLER CO. and Kohler Co. Group Insurance…
Court: United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northeastern Division.
Date published: Aug 16, 2013
Facts
Plaintiff was employed by Kohler at its Huntsville, Alabama factory for more than ten years, from April 1, 1999 until September 23, 2009. During her employment, the plaintiff mainly worked as a “Molder Operator,” but occasionally in several other positions as necessary. Her duties required medium to heavy physical exertion, and the positions occupied were classified by the Dictionary of Occupational Titles as “unskilled” to lower “semi-skilled” jobs. Plaintiff’s primary position (that of Molder Operator) required her to lift and manipulate fifty-pound fiberglass “charges,” while simultaneously operating two industrial presses. To perform those tasks, the plaintiff was required to remain standing and mobile for the majority of her twelve-hour shift as she walked between stations.
Due to the physical nature of her work, the plaintiff began to experience various pains. Eventually, she sought medical treatment. She was diagnosed as suffering from multiple physiological conditions, including osteoarthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, and endometriosis. She was repeatedly excused from work by Dr. Angelina Alejandrino, her primary care physician, and Dr. Louis G. Horn, III, an orthopedic surgeon. Although the plaintiff obtained various excuses from work from both doctors, beginning on March 10, 2009, she was not granted short-term disability benefits until June 16, 2009. Disability Examiner II Joanne Tasche denied the plaintiff’s claim for short-term disability benefits for the period between March 30 and April 6, 2009, but granted the claim for the period between May 14 and June 1, 2009. Plaintiff’s husband, Dewey Gentle, decided not to appeal the first denial decision, for the period between March 30 and April 6, 2009, “[b]ecause [plaintiff’s condition] wasn’t as severe [at that time]. She went back to work.”
Issue
Decision
For the reasons explained above, the plaintiff is entitled to short-term disability benefits and is not entitled to long-term disability benefits. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED concerning her claim for short-term disability benefits, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED concerning the plaintiff’s claim for long-term disability benefits. The remaining portions of the respective motions for summary judgment are DENIED.
The costs of this action are taxed to the defendants. The Clerk is directed to close this file— provided, however, that if the parties are unable to reach an agreement upon the aggregate amount of short-term disability benefits due to be paid to the plaintiff within a reasonable period, not to exceed 30 days from this date, the court will entertain a petition from either party to reinstate the action, and such reinstatement, if and when allowed, shall relate to the original date of filing this action.