Bruce Krysl v Treasurer of MO
ED 108958
Venue Eastern District
Release Date: Dec. 22, 2020
Plot summary:The court ordered the Commission to reinstate benefits of PPD for a 2013 accident under section 2. The SIF argued it should be able to reassert its defense that claimant was not at MMI, a position that was ignored as moot by the original commission decision. The court found the commission did not address this issue consistent with its mandate.
The court re-examined its original mandate violated due process by not allowing the Commission to address the second defense. The court noted the error due to poor briefing:
"The Fund’s failure to alternatively request its desired relief upon reversal in its Krysl I brief and its failure to argue the opinion in Krysl I was erroneous in its Rule 84.17 motion has resulted in superfluous administrative and appellate proceedings. We admonish the Fund to include all arguments in its briefings and draft Rule 84.17 motions carefully to include all perceived errors with this Court’s opinions in the future. Had this appeal involved an issue less sacrosanct than due process the outcome may have been different."
