Ocla Bellamy v. Midwest Special Services, Inc., No. WC25-6632 (WCCA, July 17, 2026).
The employee claimed to have suffered a right eye specific and/ or occupational injury. She worked as a direct support professional and did personal care, which included diapering and toileting. She did have prior right eye problems from a BB gun accident when she was a child. She had a right eye implant surgery done in 2007 and two revision surgeries in 2009. In 2012, she underwent an orbital reconstruction and had a conformer placed, which is device that is placed in the eye socket that covers the surface of a spherical eye implant.
On April 18, 2023, she developed foul smelling discharge in her right eye. She sough medical care with her family medicine physician, Dr. Ricco, who diagnosed her with bacterial infection and gave her antibiotics. Eventually, she was admitted to a hospital and tested positive for E. Coli, a bacteria associated with fecal matter. On April 26, 2023, Dr. Harrison performed right orbital implant removal. Following her discharge, the employee did see Dr. Ricco who stated that the source of employee’s eye infection “highly likely” was her exposure to a sick client at work. Dr. Ricco was deposed and during the deposition he could not testify to the incubation period for E. Coli and testified that E. Coli was “potentially’ transmitted to the employee while she was cleaning toilets.
The employer and insurer denied primary liability. They obtained an IME report from Dr. Erickson, an ophthalmologist, who opined that the employee had a long history of orbital problems, which began with the fitting of the implant and use of the conformer for many years. Dr. Erickson explained that conformers should be only used temporarily because they do not allow proper blinking, which leads to rubbing and tissue breakdown. All in all, he attributed her eye problems to eye orbit, hygiene issues, and the conformed that let to the eye breakdown.
This case went to hearing. The employer and insurer prevailed at hearing and the employee appealed. On appeal the employee argued that judge erred in finding that the employee failed to prove direct and proximate cause for an occupational disease or that she suffered a specific personal right eye injury. WCCA noted that Dr. Erickson is an ophthalmologist and was qualified to establish that employee’s eye problems related to the eye orbit, hygiene issues, and the use of the conformer and not her work activities. WCCA emphasized that the compensation judge did not adopt Dr. Ricco’s opinions that infection could have been transmitted to the employee at work because he is not an infectious disease expert. Also, the employer had a representative testify that one else that worked for them developed E. Coli. Thus, the judge determined that the condition was not peculiar to her work activities. All in all, WCCA affirmed the compensation judge’s decision.
Takeaway: The employee relied on Dr. Ricco who is a family medicine doctor and not an infectious disease specialist nor an ophthalmologist. The employer and insurer, on the other hand, had secured an opinion from Dr. Erickson who is an ophthalmologist and provided a much more compelling opinion. Should the employee have obtained a report from a different expert, the results of this case could have been much different. Thus, having a right expert for your case is paramount as it increases your chances to prevail.