Klecka v Treasurer of the State of MO as Custodian of SIF
Release Date: June 22, 2021 (April 2014)
Venue: Eastern District (Div. 3)
Summary: The Commission committed reversible error when it denied benefits on an alleged failure of proof that 287.220.3 allowed compensation only upon proof a qualifying primary injury and only one qualifying pre-existing disability when experts considered multiple pre-existing disabilities. The court, citing Parker, found medical and non-medical factors could be considered consistent with 287.020.6, including multiple prior conditions once claimant establishes at least one qualifying condition. The Fund conceded factors such as age, skill, education and training could be properly considered in conjunction with applying 287.220.3.
Dowd
Volarich
Gonzalez
England
Comments:
The decision suggests there is legislative intent that the employer pay PTD by default when there is not a qualifying SIF prior. This conclusion may come as a surprise to many employers who backed statutory reform to stop the feeding frenzy and surcharges for pre-reform SIF cases.
'The question that the court must decide whether the employer or the fund owes for the total. "If the claimant is PTD and satisfies the requirements of section 287.220.3, the Fund pays. If not, the employer pays." and the "tighter the restrictions" then "the more PTD liability falls back on the employer." '
