Court remands to address whether prior condition reached MMI

 Bruce Krysl v Treasurer of MO

ED 108958

Venue Eastern District

Release Date:  Dec.  22, 2020

Plot summary:The court ordered the Commission to reinstate benefits of PPD for a 2013 accident under section 2.  The SIF argued it should be able to reassert its defense that claimant was not at MMI, a position that was ignored as moot by the original commission decision.  The court found the commission  did not address this issue consistent with its mandate. 

The court re-examined its original mandate violated due process by not allowing the Commission to address the second defense.  The court noted the error due to poor briefing:

"The Fund’s failure to alternatively request its desired relief upon reversal in its Krysl I brief and its failure to argue the opinion in Krysl I was erroneous in its Rule 84.17 motion has resulted in superfluous administrative and appellate proceedings. We admonish the Fund to include all arguments in its briefings and draft Rule 84.17 motions carefully to include all perceived errors with this Court’s opinions in the future. Had this appeal involved an issue less sacrosanct than due process the outcome may have been different." 

Judicial estoppel not applied despite inconsistent statements

 Michel Ziade v Quality Business Solutions Inc.

Release Date:  Feb. 9, 2021  (July 2015)

Venue:  WD 83763  

Plot summary:  Claimant (Michel) is murdered and the murderer (Parker) confessed it was over a dispute about pay with FCMT.   The surviving spouse/company owner of FCTM  (Kristen)  named as employers FCTM and QBS.  FCTM did not appear at the hearing  

QBS defended the case that claimant was not an employee and the claim was also precluded under judicial estoppel. The ALJ and commission awarded benefits, and found an employment relationship. The Commission disavowed the opinion the DWC could not address issues of estoppel.  The ALJ found a service agreement that made QBS a co-employee of FCTM employees.  

The court noted the Commission improperly concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider matters of res judicata or collateral estoppel.  QBS argued judicial estoppel and claimant cannot proceed on the theory that Michel was in the course and scope of employment to recover comp benefits when she alleged in an earlier motion for summary judgment that he was on a personal errand.  

The court noted the summary judgment in federal court was not decided on the issue if claimant was on a personal errand or not but on the issue of coverage, and FCMT had dropped its general liability coverage 3 months prior to the death.  

The ALJ rejected a 'wild' defense that the death was purely personal because of a private loan or that Parker wanted to kill Michel because he was while.  No additional evidence was introduced to support either theory.   

Commission rejects PTD claim for treatment after retirement

 Mark Lynch v Anheuser Busch 

Date Feb. 2, 2021  (Accident date Jan 30 2009)  

Venue:  STL

Plot Summary:  Claimant fails to prove his injury by occupational disease (carpal tunnel) combined with pre-existing conditions when claimant retired in 2009 (last date of employment), he had knowledge of carpal tunnel at time of his retirement, and two years later sought care.  Dr. Rotman felt he had neuropathy unrelated to a work related carpal tunnel.  The employer settled the case at 20% of the wrist.  A dissent would have awarded PTD on the finding that claimant had some unidentified problem with his wrists when he was still working.

The ALJ notes the proper date was the last date of employment and found the SIF offered no evidence on a notice defense and no evidence to contest the extent of disability. 

Inj. No.  09-101188, 09-039485

Cast

Teer, ALJ 

Woiteshek

Rotman

Tatlow

Morgan

Campbell