Release Date: Oct 1, 2019
Venue: Eastern District
Length: 5 pages
Plot Summary: A worker can pursue benefits for occupational disease for a claim filed after January 2014 in some circumstances according the court of appeals, despite language in 287.220.3(1) which appears to bar such claims filed after January 2014.
Section 287.220.3(1) provides:
All claims against the second injury fund for injuries occurring after January 1, 2014, and all claims against the second injury fund involving a subsequent compensable injury which is an occupational disease filed after January 1, 2014, shall be compensated as provided in this subsection.
In Krysl the second injury fund agreed by stipulation claimant had carpal tunnel in 2013 (before the effective date of the change) but denied benefits because a claim was filed in 2014, after the effective date. The Commission denied benefits, reversing a prior award of benefits. The Court of Appeals reversed and turned on the definition of "claim" and found the fund's argument would produce an unconstitutional result of ex post facto law.
The court found the timing of when the claim was "filed" was not the issue to trigger the statute, but that the issue was whether the occupational disease was disabling or not disabling at the time the statute changed. In this case there was a stipulation that claimant had an occupational disease (presumably a "disabling" occupational disease) prior the change in the law. The court distinguished this from the scenario in which someone had a disease before January 2014, but it did not rise to the level to become disabling after January 2014, in which case the statute precluded the claim.
The decision acknowledges difficulties to divine statutory intent when he statutory language was unclear and forced to conclude the clause "filed after..." had to reach to some other meaning other than "filed" to harmonize the entire statute.
The decision affirms the statutory intent to bar partial claims against the fund filed after January 2014 when there is a condition or disability occupational disease which arises after that date, and allows such claims in what the court describes as a narrow exception only when the compensable condition arises before that date.
2019 MO. APP. Lexis 1572
Prequel
Cast
Page, Judge
Gregory, atty
Campbell, atty
Volarich
Comments:
ALJ Ottenad wrote the original award against the Fund for $10,144.90 based on prior disability of 37.5% BAW disability for prior diabetes based on expert opinion of Dr. Volarich. The ALJ noted neither party made the "date" an issue in dispute until after the trial was over. "Since no issue was raised at trial about the date of injury and since the parties stipulated to a date of injury of January I, 2013 at trial, I find that I am bound by the stipulation of the parties at hearing and will not comment further. on this matter first raised in the post-trial briefs."
The Commission concluded that the ALJ misapplied the law. "We note that the administrative law judge did not apply the law as amended in 2013, but the law as provided in 2005. The 2013 law is the appropriate law for this matter as the claim was filed on July 5, 2016.... We acknowledge that parties stipulated to the date of injury of the occupational disease as January 1, 2013. However, the stipulation does not change the filing date. Nor does such stipulation prevail over the language of the statute. "
