Release Date: Oct 22, 2019 (Accident date: June 15, 2012)
Venue: Eastern District
Plot Summary: The Court reverses a denial of benefits against the SIF and finds the Commission erred to find the award is not supported by sufficient competent evidence. The case is remanded. Claimant alleged prior psychiatric conditions combined with a primary head/psychiatric injury to render her unemployable in the open labor market.
The court distinguishes between "actual" and "potential" obstacles to employment for purposes of triggering Fund liability and finds both may trigger fund benefits if a cautious employer would perceive the prior condition may combine.
ED 107630
https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=145701
Cast
Hess, J
Keefe, D.
Summers, M
Volarich
Liss
Sky
England
(Fund offered no evidence)
Memorable quotes
"The fact Claimant was able to perform job duties without difficulty before the work accident does not indicate that her preexisting disabilities were not a hindrance or obstacle to her employment or reemployment."
"The commission can properly find against a claimant on the ground that claimant did not meet his or her burden of proof regarding causation in a workers' compensation case. This court further recognizes this is so even when the fund presents no evidence at hearing before an ALJ to contradict the claimant's evidence."
Comments
The ALJ found no specific testimony how the prior conditions were a hindrance or obstacle to employment to support an award and found expert testimony was not persuasive. A majority of the commission affirmed the denial.
The court took an unusual step and reversed on the grounds the award by the Commission was not supported by competent evidence and against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
The court found claimant established pre-existing psychiatric conditions from Dr. Liss, from her own testimony describing a prolonged work absence for 17 years, and testimony that she had obtained medication for her psychiatric conditions.
The commission erred to dismiss opinions of experts when it did address credibility and expressly find or explain why they were not credible. Dr. Sky noted she had "new and exaggerated symptoms" since the work injury Dr. Volarich concluded the prior psychiatric amplified the complaints.
The court re-iterated the burden of proof that claimant must show prove the nature and extent of prior disabilities and claimant established differences "not in kind but in degree."
The court identified procedural errors in briefing but addressed the case on the merits.
What's it worth?
$30,000 CLSS for primary involving orthopedic/psychiatric claims
