Terry Tedder v City of St. Louis
20-060957
Claimant injured his knee and proved a need for total knee replacement for his arthritic knee, reversing the finding of the ALJ who awarded 35% of the knee but denied future medical.
Dr. Volarich indicated claimant would "likely" require a total knee in the futrure.
Dr. Hawk indicated that claimant's work related meniscectomy made it more likely for him to require a total knee.
Dr. Krause concluded any need for total knee flowed from prior OA, and that any contribution from work was "slight."
The Commission found the need for future treatent flowed from the work accident, even if the work accident contributed marginally to the need for care, and that Dr. Krause may have used a reversible prevailing factor standard.
The ALJ noted the effects of the knee were "unusally" severe with constant fear of the knee giving out. The ALJ noted claimant had unique credibility as the treating physician who observed the knee at the time of surgery to concude much of claimant's problem was degenerative. A dissent would have affirmed the denial of future medical.