During the first quarter of 2007, the Commission reviewed a total of 54 cases.  Of those 54 cases, 39 were affirmed without substantive comments, 1 was reissued pursuant to instructions from the Missouri Court of Appeals, 5 were affirmed with dissenting opinions, 3 were reversed, and 6 were modified.  

Commission reversals of decisions below 

In Klein (deceased) v. Community Asset Management Company (“CAMCO”), Inj. No. 03-051796, the Commission reversed the decision of the ALJ and determined that death benefits were due to the deceased claimant’s son, Austin Klein, as a dependent.  The Commission made findings on the following three issues: (1) whether decedent’s alleged son was a dependent entitled to receive death benefits; (2) was there an employment relationship between decedent and the alleged employer, CAMCO; and (3) the compensation rate.  First, the Commission found that Austin Klein was a total dependent eligible for death benefits.  It found the birth certificate was sufficient evidence of paternity in accordance with the Uniform Parentage Act, which only allows the name of the father on the birth certificate if he has acknowledged paternity or paternity was determined by a court or by an administrative order of the family support division.  Second, the Commission found the decedent was a statutory employee of CAMCO.  It found sufficient evidence to determine there was an implied contractual relationship, the injury occurred on the premises of CAMCO, and the injury occurred while decedent was performing work done in the usual course of business of CAMCO. Lastly, the Commission determined there was insufficient evidence in the record for them to determine decedent’s compensation rate and to do so would be speculative.  It also stated it could not remand the case for production of additional evidence on this issue since the decedent never filed federal or state income tax returns or even kept any financial records.  Thus, the Commission determined the weekly compensation rate to be the statutory minimum, $40.00. 

In Johnston v. Hussman Corporation, Inj. No. 01-153936, the Commission reversed the Award of the ALJ and found the Claimant was entitled to medical treatment.  The ALJ denied compensation, finding the Claimant failed to satisfy his burden of proof that his bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome was caused by his work as a material handler.  The Commission found that the Claimant had been exposed to carpal tunnel syndrome both in the eighteen months he worked as a material handler for the employer, as well as at his previous employment as a landscaper.  It also felt there was a recognizable link between the repetitive use of his hands as a material handler and his carpal tunnel syndrome; thus, he had met the requirements for proving he suffered an occupational disease. Based on the last exposure rule, it held his employment as a material handler caused his bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, because he had worked in that position for longer than ninety days and therefore, that employer was presumptively liable. 

In Braswell v. Missouri State Highway Patrol, Inj. No. 04-085262, the Commission reversed the ALJ’s findings the employee did not sustain an injury due to an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment.  The Claimant, a state trooper, alleged she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and major depression as a result of an incident at work.  The Claimant had responded to a call at a private residence where other officers were already on the scene. An individual at the residence had to be restrained on the ground by a couple of officers.  The Claimant observed another officer draw what she perceived to be a gun and pull the trigger.  In reality, it was a taser gun.  The Claimant shouted “no” and attempted to intervene, thinking the individual was going to be executed by the officer.  Claimant offered the opinions of three medical experts concluding that her mental condition was a result of her work incident.  The Commission concluded that Claimant suffered a traumatic mental/mental claim under §287.120.1 as a result of the incident, as opposed to a non-traumatic mental/mental claim requiring her to show extraordinary or unusual stress under §287.120.8 RSMo.

In Hiatt v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., Inj. No. 00-072366, the Commission modified ALJ’s application of §287.510 RSMo, in which the medical amount employer and insurer had previously not paid and the six weeks of temporary total disability benefits owed were both doubled as part of the Award.  The Commission acknowledged that it was within the Judge’s discretion to apply the penalty provisions of §287.510 where an employer and insurance carrier failed to pay or delay in paying benefits without an excuse.  However, the Commission found that the provision calls for doubling of the entire award, not merely doubling the portion that the employer or insurance carrier failed to pay or delayed in paying.  The Commission ordered the entire Award doubled as a penalty for the delay in TTD payments and the failure to pay medical expenses.

In Meadows v. Haven Erectors, Inc., Inj. No. 04-044941, the Commission modified the ALJ’s application of §287.560 RSMo.  The ALJ awarded costs to the Claimant based on the Employer’s failure to defend the claim.  The Commission read  §287.560 to provide for assessing costs only where proceedings have been brought, prosecuted or defended without reasonable ground.  The Commission found that a failure to defend did not fall within the plain language of the statute and, therefore, costs could not be assessed against the Employer.

In Noel v. ABB Combustion Engineering., Inj. No. 97-447116, the Commission modified ALJ’s temporary and partial award of medical care, noting that the award of future medical care is appropriate to do only by final award.  The Commission entered a final award directing the Employer to provide the Employee with medical care as may reasonably be required to cure and relieve the effects of the injury.

In Strait v. Integram St. Louis Seating., Inj. No. 97-447116, the Commission modified the ALJ’s Award in which the Second Injury Fund was held liable for permanent partial disability benefits. The Commission found the Second Injury Fund liable for permanent total disability benefits.  The Commission modified the ALJ’s Award based upon the credible testimony of the vocational expert--noting that they did not believe any employer would reasonably be expected to hire employee in her present physical condition.

In Betz v. City of St. Louis., Inj. No. 05-100969, the Commission modified the ALJ’s Award finding that the Employee had reached maximum medical improvement and had sustained a two percent permanent partial disability.  The Commission found there was no medical evidence to show that the Employee had reached maximum medical improvement nor that established permanent partial disability. Accordingly, the Commission reversed the finding that the employee had reached maximum medical improvement and, further, noted that it was premature for an award of permanent partial disability.

In Leonard v. Novacare, Inc., Inj. No. 98-113992, the Commission modified two parts of the ALJ’s Award.  The Commission found several exhibits admitted by the ALJ to be inadmissible, as they lacked appropriate foundation and/or authentication, particularly with respect to §287.210 RSMo. The Commission then reduced the Award of past medical expenses to the employee based on the fact that numerous medical expenses could not be proven when the inadmissible evidence was properly excluded by the Commission.  The Commission otherwise affirmed the findings of the ALJ.

Decisions Affirming ALJ’s Decision

In Bazile v. Bi-State Development Agency., Inj. No. 05-059033, the Commission affirmed the ALJ’s decision that the Employee’s bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome was not a result of his employment as a bus driver.  One Commissioner dissented.

In David Yocum v. Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, Inj. No. 00-178128, the Commission affirmed the decision of the ALJ finding that neither doctor offered an opinion that work activities were a substantial factor in causing an aggravation of conditions about which employee complained. One Commissioner dissented.

In Mabins-Griffin v. Federal Express Corporation, Inj. No. 98-119070, the Commission felt the ALJ’s conclusion the Claimant’s neck and lumbar condition were compensable was supported by substantial and competent evidence.  One Commissioner dissented.

In Lantz v. Monsanto Chemical Company, Inj. No. 04-141314, the majority’s affirmed the ALJ’s Award.  One Commissioner dissented.

In Strode v. Des Peres Hospital, Inj. No. 99-166495, the Commission affirmed the ALJ’s finding the Claimant was permanently and totally disabled.  However, the Commission provided a supplemental opinion addressing the Administrative Law Judge’s attempt to correct the original award issued May 26, 2006.   The Administrative Law Judge issued a purported corrected Award on June 8, 2006, indicating that the Second Injury Fund had liability.  The Commission found, that under §287.610.6 RSMo, ALJ can correct a clerical error in an award or settlement, but only if it does so before the earlier of a timely filing of an application for review and the expiration of the twenty-day period to seek review.  In this case, the corrected award was issued after the employer/insurer submitted its application for review and, thus, the Commission voided the amended award.

One Commissioner dissented.