Jody Sneed v Walmart (sif only)
Release date: Aug 4, 2020 (Accident date Jan 2017)
Venue: Greene County
Plot Summary: A majority of the commission reverses an award of total benefits against the Second Injury Fund based on its own interpretation of 287.220, which it admits is at odds with the court of appeals.
https://labor.mo.gov/sites/labor/files/decisions_wc/SneedJody17-03549908-04-20.pdf
Cast
Elmer, ALJ,
Mullins
Eldred
Comment:
The majority concludes the SIF statute which refers to pre-existing "injury" includes only injury by accident and not injury by occupational disease, and the consideration of prior injuries from repetitive trauma were improper. The majority felt it was reversible to consider pre-existing conditions that did not meet the 50 week threshold, even though the threshold had been satisfied by other qualifying condition. The majority includes PTD must be established with "a" single prior condition and not multiple prior qualifying conditions.
Claimant's primary injury involved a 20% settlement and she sought benefits for prior hip replacements and prior degenerative disc disease.
"We acknowledge that a majority of the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, recently filed an opinion, not yet final, that is at odds with our interpretation of § 287.220.3(2)(a)b. See Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund v. Jonathan ParkerWD83030 (July 14, 2020). One member of the three judge division that decided the case challenged the majority's interpretation in a strongly written dissenting opinion. For the reasons stated above, we fundamentally disagree with the Western District majority's recent interpretation of§ 287.220.3(2)(a)b. We instead find that the express language of§ 287.220.3(2)(a)b requires that an employee prove permanent total disability resulting from the combination of the primary injury and a single, qualifying preexisting disabling condition, in order to receive permanent total disability benefits from the Second Injury Fund under the new statutory test."
It is not clear why the majority would pivot on the issue that the court of appeals decision wasn't final as a basis to bypass the concept of stare decisis.
