Christopher Klecka v Johnny Jones Inc.
Accident Fund
Release Date: Jan 14, 2020 (Accident date April 18, 2014)
Venue: St. Louis
Plot Summary: The ALJ awards PTD benefits based on evidence "Claimant and his medical experts credibly testified his compensable and noncompensable pre-existing injuries significantly aggravated or accelerated his primary injury."
The Second Injury Fund filed a timely application for review with the Commission alleging the administrative law judge misapplied§ 287.220.3 RSMo by including conditions within her analysis that do not satisfy the criteria for permanent total disability claims against the Second Injury Fund.
"Dr. Volarich made clear, however, that his opinion that employee is permanently and totally disabled includes consideration of the effects of the 1981 head injury, 2005 thumb injury, and 2006 hernia, as well as the effects of the 2007 right shoulder injury."
The commission notes a failure to proof to meet the criteria of 287.220.3 that each of the enumerated prior conditions either established PPD or met the 50 week threshold and further noted that evidence from Dr. Volarich that there was a synergistic effect was not "persuasive" to establish the element of 27.220.3 to establish causation.
Cast:
Hart, ALJ
Sievers, atty
Enzmann
Volarich
Sky
England
Gonzalez
Memorable quotes
"The question presently before us, then, is whether employee is entitled to permanent total disability benefits where his claimed permanent total disability does not result from a combination of the primary injury and preexisting disability that satisfies the enumerated criteria under§ 287.220.3(a)a, but rather from the combination of his primary injury and a// of his claimed preexisting disabling conditions, including those conditions that do not satisfy§ 287.220.3(a)"
Comments:
Claimant settled the primary injury to his shoulder that was "yanked" and involved multiple surgical repairs and became depressed.
The dissent argues once some pre-existing conditions qualify under the fund test, then others can be considered without each meeting the qualification standards as there was no clear legislative intent for the employer to assume liability for the impact on non-qualifying prior conditions.
"This result is so antithetical to the well-established purposes underlying the Second Injury Fund, and constitutes such a drastic departure from the state of the law at the time the legislature enacted the 2013 amendments, that I will not presume the legislature intended such a result absent express language so declaring. (For example, if such a result were intended, one would expect our legislature to simultaneously and expressly abrogate the long line of Missouri cases declaring the purpose of the Second Injury Fund.)"
