Hood v City of Kansas City
ALJ Rebman - affirmed
Atty: Downing, Roberson, Colling
Experts: Koprivica, Drieling, Wheeler
Treater: Reintjes
DOLIR 1-10-2018
Claimant, 66, alleges he injured his neck and back from mopping 2 1/2 hours in his job a a stock clerk and the ALJ awarded 15% PPD with a PTD award against the Fund based on medical opinion of his expert, Dr. Koprivica.
The Commission rejected the Fund's argument that the new statutory standards applied, and found the pre-reform standard applied in the case because claimant's disability predated the effective date of reform. The fund's appeal was contrary to the holding in Gattenby, 516 S.W.3d 819 (Mo. App. 2017)
Claimant relied upon multiple prior comp settlements in part as his basis to prove up the extent of prior disability.
The Commission noted the ALJ resolved the case by finding the claimant's expert more credible on the issue of causation, No party identified causation as a disputed issue.
"The parties appear to have asked the administrative law judge to consider and resolve at least two statutory tests, and an award wherein the administrative law judge resolved neither, but instead addressed and resolved a third question that was not expressly identified for trial."
"nor has any party suggested the administrative law judge’s award is deficient for failure to consider or resolve either of the aforementioned statutory tests under §§ 287.020 or 287.020.3(2). We infer from these circumstances that employer and the Second Injury Fund effectively agree that those statutory tests, to the extent that they may have been implicated in this claim, are satisfied. For this reason, we will not further explore the issue whether the administrative law judge appropriately resolved the relevant issues, or exceeded his authority by delving into an issue that was not specifically identified.
We would, however, take this opportunity to remind the parties as to the critical importance of obtaining a statement of the particular issues in dispute that is not only complete, but precise in terms of the specific statutory elements and/or defenses at issue, in order to avoid any confusion (and costly multiplication of proceedings) that may result on appeal."
The Commission noted the parties incorrectly asked whether claimant had an accident arising out of and in the scope of his employment when the correct inquiry was whether there was an injury arising out of employment. It noted the phrase "scope" was not within the statutory definitions.
