Ronald Reynolds v Wilcox Truck Line, Inc.
Venue: Western District
Release date: Sept. 17, 2019
pages: 18
Plot Summary: The Court of Appeals affirms a Commission award of permanent and total disability benefits and affirms an award for nursing services provided by his wife which includes emotional support for the worker's PTSD.
Claimant's truck overturned in 2007 and he escaped the wreckage before it caught fire and burned. He was diagnosed with PTSD and major depressive disorder. Claimant's wife quit her job to care for her husband and asserts she spends 20 hours a day "to keep him calm" when he had panic attacks among other activities. The ALJ (Miner) denied nursing benefits but the commission found the services were compensable because they were 'nursing' care distinguishable from services of a spouse
Claimant's truck overturned in 2007 and he escaped the wreckage before it caught fire and burned. He was diagnosed with PTSD and major depressive disorder. Claimant's wife quit her job to care for her husband and asserts she spends 20 hours a day "to keep him calm" when he had panic attacks among other activities. The ALJ (Miner) denied nursing benefits but the commission found the services were compensable because they were 'nursing' care distinguishable from services of a spouse
WD 81969 2019 MO APP. LEXIS 1459 https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=144334
Prequel:
Cast:
Hardwick, Judge
Lanham, atty
Powell, atty
Steven Akeson
Dale Halfaker
Stanley Butts
Gary Weimholt
Jennifer Lynch
Memorable Quotes:
"the legislature demonstrated that it is perfectly capable of abrogating previous opinions it finds objectionable"
Comments:
The crux of the employer's argument is the types of the services the spouse performed were not "real" nursing services and that the commission was writing checks for someone to perform "normal" activities to support a spouse emotionally Claimant quit her job, and argues the scope of duties were extensive (20 hours a day) and she was involved in other medical management activities rather than just emotional assurance to make her injured spouse feel someone had his back.
The court found persuasive the argument that the activities could be characterized as nursing duties that would be medically necessary if the spouse did not provide them rather than drawing the line in the sand of what an "ordinary" spouse might be expected to perform. To that extent, the court seemed to suggest the employer would be obligated to find d a nurse to perform similar tasks such as managing meds and could pay a nurse if it did not want to pay the spouse. The findings are unclear if claimant simply could not perform the task (self medical management, for example) or if the spouse simply assumed the duties and role to perform the activity and wants to be paid as an after-thought. The Commission reduced the amount of compensation the spouse had sought for her services from essentially round the clock to 3 days a week.
The court also dismissed the employer's argument that its defense was compromised by claimant's refusal to appear for a psychiatric exam. The court criticized the employer's argument as "thinly disguised invitation" to re-visit the issue of credibility and failed to show why the ALJ was wrong to deny further psychiatric evaluation based on opinion evidence that more exams would "endanger" him.
Claimant's return to work for a trial period did not defeat a claim of total disability and claimant's activity on a cattle farm which he claims he needed constant supervision did not establish he was capable of working in the open labor market. Similarly, post-accident conduct to not seek employment did not negate a finding that he was unemployable when that conclusion was supported by expert opinion.
The court found persuasive the argument that the activities could be characterized as nursing duties that would be medically necessary if the spouse did not provide them rather than drawing the line in the sand of what an "ordinary" spouse might be expected to perform. To that extent, the court seemed to suggest the employer would be obligated to find d a nurse to perform similar tasks such as managing meds and could pay a nurse if it did not want to pay the spouse. The findings are unclear if claimant simply could not perform the task (self medical management, for example) or if the spouse simply assumed the duties and role to perform the activity and wants to be paid as an after-thought. The Commission reduced the amount of compensation the spouse had sought for her services from essentially round the clock to 3 days a week.
The court also dismissed the employer's argument that its defense was compromised by claimant's refusal to appear for a psychiatric exam. The court criticized the employer's argument as "thinly disguised invitation" to re-visit the issue of credibility and failed to show why the ALJ was wrong to deny further psychiatric evaluation based on opinion evidence that more exams would "endanger" him.
Claimant's return to work for a trial period did not defeat a claim of total disability and claimant's activity on a cattle farm which he claims he needed constant supervision did not establish he was capable of working in the open labor market. Similarly, post-accident conduct to not seek employment did not negate a finding that he was unemployable when that conclusion was supported by expert opinion.
The court noted that pre-reform allowed compensation to allow an award of nursing services for a spouse. The court found section 287.800.1 and its mandate for strict construction did not require reversal of these cases. The court relied upon a dictionary definition to allow nursing that included duties of a person skilled in caring for and waiting on the infirm, the injured, or the sick, which could include one especially trained to carry out such duties under the supervision of a physician. The court found no legislative purpose to abrogate the earlier cases or a more restrictive scope of services.
What's it worth?
PTD for PTSD/Depression with open medical.
