Ali Crawford v Ronald McDonald House Charities
Release Date: Sept. 26, 2019 (2012 Accident Date)
Venue: Southern District
Plot Summary: Court of Appeals affirms a dismissal of claimant's appeal, and finds that the Commission did not act without or in excess of its powers when it dismissed an appeal because of a failure to comply with 8 CSR 20-3.030(3)(A) which requires the applicant to state specifically in the application the reason the applicant believes the findings and conclusions of the administrative law judge on the controlling issues are not properly supported. In the case the ALJ found the employer's expert more credible and denied benefits.
No. SD 36028 Mo App. Lexis 1534
Cast
Sheffield, J.
Newman, atty
Hecht, atty
Comments: Claimant alleged a severe allergic reaction while at work because of an exposure to latex and presented records and an expert opinion to support his claim. The ALJ found the employer's expert more credible and denied the claim (The underlying decision is not published). Claimant appealed and alleged:
1. The judge erred in finding that the Employer/Insurer was not liable for Claimant's injuries and for Claimant's permanent partial disability, as the only credible evidence was that the employee was injured at work on December 11, 2012, in that she was removed from her place of employment at the time of the exposure and taken to the emergency room by medial personnel suffering from an allergic reaction and as a result of the exposure, Claimant has sustained permanent partial disability.
2. The only credible evidence is that Claimant was injured while at work and (the ALJ) ignored that evidence in reaching his decision that Claimant's injuries and subsequent disability were not work related.
The Commission notes the claimant failed to state why her evidence was the only credible evidence or failed to identify what specific evidence the ALJ allegedly ignored. The application did not state specifically why the ALJ 's decision is not properly supported. It was not enough for the applicant to state that the she felt her evidence was more credible. The general assertion that the decision was not supported by competent and sufficient evidence was "patently insufficient" to comply with the rule.
Judge Scott in a concurring opinion felt the lack of specificity was not prejudicial when the parties intended to brief any alleged errors. The judge notes the irony that the Commission requests more specificity but in a new September 2, 2019 rule now advises parties to keep the application short (five pages or less). Judge Scott noted the rule to require specificity flowed from a "presumed" legislative intent to deter frivolous appeals by employers.
