No evidence needed to find against a party who had burden of proof.

Gina Beaman v Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.

Release Date:  June 23, 2020

Venue:  SD

Plot Summary:

The court notes:

"Gina Beaman lost a workers' compensation claim for failure to carry her burden of proof. She appeals, charging in each of six points that "there was not sufficient competent evidence" to support a decision against her. See § 287.495.1(4), RSMo. (2000)1 Only factual findings needed to make an award for the employee need evidentiary support. Annayeva v. SAB of TSD of City of St. Louis, 597 S.W.3d 196, 200 n.8 (Mo. banc 2020). This tracks a basic precept – no evidence is needed to find against the party who bore the burden of proof or to uphold that decision on appeal. See, e.g., Taylor v. Taylor, 585 S.W.3d 390, 395 & n.5 (Mo. App. S.D. 2019). Offering no cognizable legal basis for reversal, Beaman's § 287.495.1(4) complaints fail without further discussion or analysis. See Guinn v. Treasurer, No. SD36380, slip op. at 9 (Mo. App. S.D. May 4, 2020). We reject all points and affirm the denial of benefits." 



Cast:

Sheffield, Hon. 

Deconditioning caused by delay in treatment

Frank Starks v Import Specialists

Release Date:  June 23, 2020  (Accident date Aug 5 2015)

Venue:  Springfield

Plot Summary:  Commission affirms a PTD award with open medical for a hip injury from tripping over an electrical cord resulting in the need for a hip replacement.

https://labor.mo.gov/sites/labor/files/decisions_wc/StarksFrank15-063148.pdf

Cast:
Mahon, ALJ
Platter
McBrearty
Hicks
Charapata 50%, then 60%, then total
Lennard
Crockett - 40% hip

Comments: 

The ALJ found no fund liability based on a prior back surgery that required daily use of oxycodone a month before the hip accident  because claimant states he  experienced a "night and day" difference in his symptoms.  The ALJ later notes in her credibility assessment that claimant "downplayed" the extent the prior back symptoms impacted him.    She concludes no "realistic" employer would hire him because of his age, limited tolerance to sit, and narcotic use, and no high school diploma.

The ALJ found the employer delayed treatment, the delay caused deconditioning and endangered claimant's recovery in violation of 287.140.2 but found the employer did not waive its right to "select" a provider for future care but needed to designate a provider to furnish treatment consistent with recommendations of claimant's expert, a retired anesthesiologist. 

"Rather than immediately remove the selection of the health care provider, however, Employee has suggested in his proposed Award that Employer/Insurer be directed to select a health care provider who will provide future medical care consistent with the recommendations of Dr. Charapata to relieve the effects of the work injury. If Employer/Insurer then fails to provide such treatment, it will be deemed to have waived the right to select providers, and Employee shall thereafter be entitled to reimbursement of his future medical expenses. I find such solution appropriate, within the contemplation of the statute, and order the same. "


The ALJ denied a defense to shorten TTD based on a purported offer to return to work in a seated position based on the conclusion that claimant could sustain work in a seated position.

The ALJ makes several findings concerning claimant's frail appearance, at one time that he was under 100 pounds. 

Benefits from assault denied under first aggressor defense.

Nathan Ford v Assoc. Electrical Cooperative

Release Date:  6/4/2020  (Accident date June 7, 2015)

Venue:  Randolph County

Plot Summary:  The Commission affirms a denial of a temporary award of benefits on a failure to prove accident.  Claimant alleges a verbal altercation escalated and he was beaten and hit six times.  The alleged assailant (Rhoades) claims he acted in self defense and struck Ford after he was grabbed by the collar and pulled toward claimant.  The ALJ found Ford "started it" by laying hands first on the party who struck him.
https://labor.mo.gov/sites/labor/files/decisions_wc/FordNathan15-04709106-04-20.pdf

Cast:
Fisher, ALJ
Collins

Comments:  The lack of "live" testimony at the hearing is not clear and testimony was offered through civil depositions.  Claimant asserted  he should have been allowed to introduced additional evidence to rebut the first aggressor defense.  Claimant failed to show cause why he could not have testified live at the hearing (the proposed new testimony is not a "newly discovered" evidence).  It is unclear the disposition of any civil or criminal cases arising out of the same set of facts.