Jamie Overstreeet v Tamko Building
Release Date: Jan 27, 2022 (accident date Feb. 12, 2018)
Venue: Southern District
ummary: Court of appeals affirms ALJ/Commisson denial of benefits on claimant's failure to prove bilateral patellofemoral knee pain symdrome and meniscus tear arose out of employment when his knee poppped when he was walking at work and changed directions quickly.
No SD 37171
Discussion. Claimant argued that the Commisison misapplied the law on section 287.020.3(2)(b) and that he identified various risk factors to show the injury was compensable including his need to pivot to recover a work related item, the uneven slope of the injury location, the use of protective foot gear, and the need for work to require him to mentally think more than his non-employment life. Claimant failed to show that the risk was not one in which the worker would not have been equally exposed in his non-employment life as he acknowledged in normal life he often walked and often changed directions. The court notes in a foot note that claimant retracted earlier statment that he was walking at a slighlty faster pace. A superivsor testified the asphalt lot was typical and similar to many of the community lots.
The court noted it was claimant's burden to proof to show an injury arises out of and in course of employemtn including to show it does not come from a hazard or risk unrelated to the employemnt to which workers would have been equally exposed outsdie of an unrelated to the employment in normal nonemployment life.
