Art world has gone bananas.

 Then there is the story about the banana and the duct tape.

Those comp attorneys who do not follow the art world may have missed the recent BBC story, “Duct-taped banana artwork sells for $6.2m in NYC.”

Cattelan’s artwork of banana duct-taped to a wall reached 6.2 million at Sotheby’s. The “art” was introduced to the public in 2019.  The banana on the wall has gone on a world tour with instructions on how to replace the banana when it rots. A Chinese crypto guy bought it fighting off five other bidders.

The story raises important points to the comp practitioner.

First, there are those cases in comp world that are not like all the other cases in comp world.  Fact patterns may be so bizarre to sound apocryphal, even in the metaverse.   This makes it harder to predict outcomes, increases risk of mis-valuation, and triggers a lot of soul searching and buyer’s regret whether the apple duct taped to the wall is not worth as much as the jalapeno duct taped to the wall. 

Second, some people see value in things where others do not.  There are those people who believe cases are worth zillions if a rotting banana is worth millions.   This explains the thousands of things in people’s basements that have been held for years because they might be worth something one day.  Somtimes a banana is just a banana, and like a bad case, has a diminishing value over time.  

Third, there are apparently some people in the art world who can impulsively spend six million on a banana and sleep at night thinking they have had a good day.  There may be five other bidders for the banana who sleep even better. In the claims world, the spending profile of the average adjustor is a lot different than a Chinese crypo king, dollars are more closely watched, and burden of proof usually requires more than throwing something against the wall to see what sticks.

There is always a market if someone can find a willing buyer.    Injured workers waiting to settle their cases might start taping fruit to the wall and start the bidding on e-bay. It might even sell better than the old collections of pet rocks and mood rings and no one has to wait on medicare set asides.  

 

Commission affirms PPD award against SIF in pre-reform case (17 years post-accident).

 In a SIF case that is now 17-years old,  the Commission affirms a denial of PTD SIF benefits  based on prior conditions to the knee, shoulder or neuropathy when the expert's opinions about prior limitations were inconsistent with claimant's prior high level function, claimant had a good recovery from the primary,  and the expert did not assess claimant's condition at the time of the accident but his vocational status 10 years later.

The commission affirmed an award of partial benefits against the SIF  (old law) noting primary injuries to both arms (carpal and cubital) combined with priors of  20%, 15%, and 10% of the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine.  

Dennis Eldridge v Zoltek Co. (SIF only)

Inj  No.  07-077605  (dec.  Nov. 21, 2024) 

Venue:  St. Charles County  (ALJ Gilliam)

Atty:  Parker, Kellerman   

Court of Appeals finds broadly-phrased application for review complied with notice requirements

The commisison found PTD liaiblity against the second injury fund, reversing a finding of PTD against the employer.   The SIF, and claimant, objected and argued the employers application for review was insufficient.  

The court  of appeals affirmed the Commission and found the employer provided sufficient detail of alleged error, despite criticism from the Commission that the notice "certainly could be specific"  alleging broad error that the ALJ misapplied the law, the award was against the overwhelming evidence and there was error relying upon findings of impairment.   It noted  case history of the commisson rejecting deficient applications but no cases in which  the court of appeals reversed a finding when the Commission found the applicaton was sufficient.  

The court declined to address whether the AFR now required strict construction after reform, and found the notice sufficient even applying strict construction.

Emerson v Prestressed Casting Co., SD 38434  (Mo. App. 2024) ( decided Nov. 19, 2024)