{"disclaimer":"This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","topic":{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers Compensation","description":null,"totalCases":190,"relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]},"trend":[{"year":2018,"count":11},{"year":2019,"count":23},{"year":2020,"count":34},{"year":2021,"count":36},{"year":2022,"count":21},{"year":2023,"count":20},{"year":2024,"count":20},{"year":2025,"count":23},{"year":2026,"count":2}],"cases":[{"caseId":"moappd:ed113466:2025-10-21","opinionId":"be330d76-3b64-5b6d-978b-4be11f5123c0","slug":"john-w-tippit-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-second-injury-fund-respondent-113466","caseName":"John W. Tippit, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Second Injury Fund, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113466","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-10-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"John Tippit appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision to dismiss his application for review as untimely, which stemmed from an Administrative Law Judge's dismissal of his workers' compensation claim against the Second Injury Fund for failure to prosecute. The appellate court reversed the Commission's finding that Tippit's application was untimely. It held that the Division of Workers' Compensation failed to prove it properly mailed the Order of Dismissal in compliance with statutory notice requirements, thus the 20-day period for filing an application for review never began to run. The case was remanded to the Commission to determine whether Tippit had good cause for failing to respond to the show-cause notice and for failing to prosecute his claim.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","appellate-procedure","administrative-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226619","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-w-tippit-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-second-injury-fund-respondent-113466","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113338:2025-09-30","opinionId":"f46fda95-29b8-5c8c-a3fc-4927f49219e5","slug":"david-kell-respondent-v-walker-recycling-company-llc-appellant-113338","caseName":"David Kell, Respondent, vs. Walker Recycling Company, LLC, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113338","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"David Kell filed a petition in the circuit court seeking to correct a clerical error in a workers' compensation settlement agreement with Walker Recycling Company, LLC, and to have the court enter judgment on the corrected settlement. The circuit court granted Kell's petition, correcting the employer's name and entering judgment for Kell. Walker Recycling appealed, arguing the judgment lacked substantial evidence, that Kell was not its employee, and that the court lacked authority to modify the settlement. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225357","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-kell-respondent-v-walker-recycling-company-llc-appellant-113338","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38916:2025-09-24","opinionId":"a5ffa1f2-dd41-51d9-9b74-c199de26b9a0","slug":"robert-byers-appellant-v-new-prime-inc-respondent-d38916","caseName":"ROBERT BYERS, Appellant\nv.\nNEW PRIME, INC., Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38916","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Robert Byers, a truck driver, appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's award of permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits, contending that the evidence overwhelmingly proved he was permanently and totally disabled (PTD). The Commission had found Byers not credible based on surveillance video and rejected his experts' opinions, instead relying on the employer's medical expert. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's award, holding that it was supported by competent and substantial evidence and that the court would not substitute its judgment on witness credibility or the weight of competing medical opinions.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225173","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-byers-appellant-v-new-prime-inc-respondent-d38916","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113098:2025-09-02","opinionId":"5fad49f7-3d71-5b6f-b419-52f976060e73","slug":"alana-hauck-respondent-v-the-police-retirement-system-of-st-louis-et-al-a-113098","caseName":"Alana Hauck, Respondent, vs. The Police Retirement System of St. Louis, et al., Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED113098","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-02","year":2025,"display_summary":"Alana Hauck sought service-connected disability retirement benefits from The Police Retirement System of St. Louis (PRS), which denied her application. The circuit court reversed PRS's decision, and PRS appealed. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that PRS erred by improperly applying alleged symptom magnification to the exclusivity requirement for benefits. The case was remanded to PRS for reconsideration of whether Hauck's incapacitation was the exclusive result of her work accident, and Hauck's motion for attorney's fees was denied.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","workers-compensation","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224315","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/alana-hauck-respondent-v-the-police-retirement-system-of-st-louis-et-al-a-113098","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113099:2025-06-17","opinionId":"63b4cfb3-a69c-541c-988c-70d349e7a8ab","slug":"brian-white-respondent-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-as-custodian-113099","caseName":"Brian White, Respondent, vs. Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113099","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"The Treasurer of the State of Missouri, as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund (SIF), appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's award of permanent total disability benefits to Brian White. White's award was based on a chest injury combined with a preexisting occupational shoulder disease. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that occupational diseases do not qualify as a preexisting disability for SIF liability under § 287.220.3(2)(a)a(ii), consistent with a recent Supreme Court of Missouri decision. The case was remanded for the Commission to consider other potential bases for SIF liability.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221421","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/brian-white-respondent-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-as-custodian-113099","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113075:2025-05-27","opinionId":"bd00de80-065e-5d20-bc2c-953963963918","slug":"jeremy-jarvis-appellant-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-113075","caseName":"Jeremy Jarvis, Appellant, v. Treasurer of the State of Missouri - Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113075","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-27","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jeremy Jarvis appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of his claim against the Second Injury Fund. Jarvis, an iron worker, sustained a primary work injury in 2015, which he argued, when combined with preexisting disabilities, rendered him permanently and totally disabled. The Commission denied benefits, finding that one of Jarvis's three preexisting disabilities did not meet the statutory fifty-week permanent partial disability threshold. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Commission did not err in its application of the law or in finding its decision supported by competent and substantial evidence, as a claimant cannot rely on a non-qualifying preexisting disability for Fund benefits.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220923","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jeremy-jarvis-appellant-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-113075","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100784:2025-04-29","opinionId":"10d00d0c-611c-52aa-af93-bf25dce52d08","slug":"james-eckardt-appellantcross-respondent-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custod-100784","caseName":"James Eckardt, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, vs. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent/Cross-Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100784","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-04-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"James Eckardt appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of permanent total disability (PTD) benefits from the Second Injury Fund. Eckardt argued the Commission misconstrued evidence regarding his right shoulder injury and erred by not applying a load factor to enhance its permanent partial disability (PPD) rating. The Court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that the load factor analysis was eliminated by statutory amendments and that Eckardt failed to prove PTD based solely on qualifying preexisting injuries.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220176","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-eckardt-appellantcross-respondent-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custod-100784","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100693:2025-04-29","opinionId":"af266b5f-8878-56b1-a502-f1407ceae222","slug":"treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-the-second-injury-fund-ap-100693","caseName":"Treasurer of the State of Missouri – Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Appellant, vs. Diana Penney, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100693","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-04-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Diana Penney sought permanent total disability benefits from the Second Injury Fund, claiming her primary occupational injury combined with two preexisting occupational diseases rendered her permanently disabled. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission awarded benefits, but the Second Injury Fund appealed. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that preexisting occupational diseases do not qualify as \"compensable injuries as defined in section 287.020\" under the relevant Second Injury Fund statute, thus precluding Penney's claim for benefits.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","administrative-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220175","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-the-second-injury-fund-ap-100693","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87329:2025-04-15","opinionId":"33024c62-9159-5f31-9e8a-34435d55d686","slug":"aaron-stock-v-policemens-and-firemens-retirement-fund-of-the-city-of-rich-d87329","caseName":"Aaron Stock\nvs.\nPolicemen's and Firemen's Retirement Fund of the City of Richmond Heights, Missouri","caseNumber":"WD87329","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-04-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"Aaron Stock, a firefighter, sought duty-related disability benefits from the City of Richmond Heights' Retirement Fund for a wrist injury. The Fund's Board determined his disability was not duty-related, awarding a lower pension. Stock appealed the Board's decision to the circuit court, which affirmed. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the Board's decision to credit certain expert medical opinions over others was supported by competent and substantial evidence, and that Stock waived any objection to the experts' qualifications by not raising it at the administrative hearing.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure","evidence","workers-compensation"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219593","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/aaron-stock-v-policemens-and-firemens-retirement-fund-of-the-city-of-rich-d87329","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86617:2025-03-25","opinionId":"30bee7e8-879d-5ebf-af3d-47ff4b0ce1b2","slug":"shirley-a-ralls-personal-representative-for-the-estate-of-james-r-ralls-v-d86617","caseName":"Shirley A. Ralls, Personal Representative for the Estate of James R. Ralls\nvs.\nSoo Line Railroad","caseNumber":"WD86617","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-03-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Shirley Ralls, as personal representative for her deceased husband's estate, sued Soo Line Railroad Company for wrongful death under FELA, alleging her husband's lung cancer was caused by exposure to carcinogens during his employment. The jury found in favor of Soo Line. On appeal, Ralls argued the trial court erred by allowing her husband's treating physician to offer causation opinions as an undisclosed expert and by permitting opinions that differed from his discovery deposition. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding Ralls was unfairly surprised and prejudiced by the treating physician's expert testimony on causation, which was based on new research not disclosed during discovery.","primaryTopic":"wrongful-death","topicSlugs":["wrongful-death","civil-procedure","evidence","workers-compensation"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218658","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/shirley-a-ralls-personal-representative-for-the-estate-of-james-r-ralls-v-d86617","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38504:2025-03-20","opinionId":"b4415798-a77d-5f1b-9367-2d74d16643bd","slug":"mark-walton-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-second-inju-d38504","caseName":"MARK WALTON, Appellant\nv.\nTREASURER OF MISSOURI AS CUSTODIAN OF SECOND INJURY FUND, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38504","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-20","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mark Walton appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying his claim for permanent and total disability benefits from the Second Injury Fund. The Commission found Walton's preexisting left-shoulder injury did not meet the fifty-week permanent partial disability threshold required by §287.220.3. On appeal, Walton argued that a portion of a prior enhanced PPD award should be added to meet this threshold. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that §287.220.3 does not permit using a prior enhanced PPD award to supplement an otherwise non-qualifying injury.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218634","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-walton-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-second-inju-d38504","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112795:2025-03-18","opinionId":"87d35010-5f2d-5ef6-9df6-3dd7324f73f4","slug":"jerry-thomas-appellant-v-collins-hermann-inc-and-state-of-missouri-second-112795","caseName":"Jerry Thomas, Appellant, vs. Collins & Hermann, Inc., and State of Missouri, Second Injury Fund, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112795","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jerry Thomas appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision reversing an award of permanent and total disability benefits against the Second Injury Fund. Thomas argued his prior right knee disability was a compensable injury, his prior knee disabilities met the 50-week threshold, and denying benefits left him without a remedy. The appellate court affirmed the Commission, holding that Thomas failed to prove his right knee injury was a compensable injury and that his \"without a remedy\" argument was unpreserved for review.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218541","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jerry-thomas-appellant-v-collins-hermann-inc-and-state-of-missouri-second-112795","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87111:2025-02-19","opinionId":"cd890e1c-31bb-53b8-ae2d-912cbe293432","slug":"state-of-missouri-ex-rel-jeremy-starr-v-board-of-trustee-for-the-firefigh-d87111","caseName":"State of Missouri, ex rel. Jeremy Starr\nvs.\nBoard of Trustee for the Firefighters' Pension System of the City of Kansas City, Missouri Trust","caseNumber":"WD87111","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-02-19","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jeremy Starr, a firefighter, sought a duty-related disability pension for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and cubital tunnel syndrome. The Pension Board denied his claim for duty-related benefits, awarding a non-duty pension instead, which the circuit court reversed. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the Pension Board improperly rejected unanimous expert medical opinions on causation by substituting its own lay judgment and mischaracterizing the experts' reliance on Starr's job descriptions. The case was remanded to the Pension Board with directions to award Starr the duty-related disability pension benefits.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","standard-of-review","evidence","workers-compensation"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217593","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-jeremy-starr-v-board-of-trustee-for-the-firefigh-d87111","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87032:2025-01-08","opinionId":"cb028a87-17fe-54b2-8a34-b379d6b647cd","slug":"robert-balliu-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-the-secon-d87032","caseName":"Robert Balliu\nvs.\nTreasurer of the State of Missouri - Custodian of the Second Injury Fund","caseNumber":"WD87032","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-01-08","year":2025,"display_summary":"Robert Balliu appealed the Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision, which denied his claim for worker's compensation from the Second Injury Fund (SIF) for a 2015 work-related injury. Balliu contended that a prior 1999 hernia combined with his 2015 injury to cause permanent total disability, making the SIF liable. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that the SIF is not liable when the primary injury alone, not in combination with a preexisting disability, results in permanent total disability, and found the Commission's factual findings were supported by sufficient evidence.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216373","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-balliu-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-the-secon-d87032","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100659:2024-12-23","opinionId":"4318ed6e-7047-5d3c-a65c-d945d64d8378","slug":"joe-david-hudson-respondent-v-joplin-regional-stockyards-inc-appellant-100659","caseName":"Joe David Hudson, Respondent, v. Joplin Regional Stockyards, Inc., Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100659","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-12-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Joe David Hudson was injured while working for Joplin Regional Stockyards, Inc. (JRS) and entered into a workers' compensation settlement that included a lump sum payment and left future medical expenses \"open.\" Years later, Hudson moved to revive the judgment based on this settlement, which JRS opposed, arguing the judgment had been satisfied. The circuit court sustained Hudson's motion, but the Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that the judgment was satisfied because the \"open\" future medical expenses remained within the exclusive province of the Division of Workers' Compensation and were not part of the circuit court's judgment. The Court also overruled Hudson's motion for damages for a frivolous appeal.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","workers-compensation","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215914","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joe-david-hudson-respondent-v-joplin-regional-stockyards-inc-appellant-100659","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112149:2024-11-26","opinionId":"684bfcc6-dffb-5e00-b61e-24507ea6dc38","slug":"patrick-ryan-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-second-injury-fund-respondent-112149","caseName":"Patrick Ryan, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Second Injury Fund, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112149","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-26","year":2024,"display_summary":"Patrick Ryan appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying his claim against the Second Injury Fund for permanent total disability benefits. The appeal centered on whether prior enhanced permanent partial disability awards should be considered in meeting the 50-week statutory threshold and as a direct result of a compensable injury under § 287.220.3. The appellate court reversed the Commission's decision, holding that enhanced PPD benefits from a prior work-related injury should be considered for both the 50-week threshold and as a direct result of a compensable injury. The case was remanded with instructions to grant Ryan PTD benefits from the Fund.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214917","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/patrick-ryan-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-second-injury-fund-respondent-112149","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38424:2024-11-19","opinionId":"29ec5ccb-b564-5fc4-93f1-1ced94cbeea9","slug":"daniel-emerson-plaintiff-appellant-v-prestressed-casting-company-defendan-d38424","caseName":"DANIEL EMERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nPRESTRESSED CASTING COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent \nand TREASURER OF MISSOURI, CUSTODIAN OF THE SECOND INJURY FUND, Respondent/Cross-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38424","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-19","year":2024,"display_summary":"Daniel Emerson and the Second Injury Fund appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision, which denied their motions to dismiss Prestressed Casting Company's application for review. Emerson and the Fund argued the employer's application failed to comply with regulatory specificity requirements. The Commission had modified an ALJ's award, assigning liability for permanent partial disability to the employer and permanent total disability benefits to the Fund. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, concluding the Commission did not exceed its powers by finding the employer's application for review sufficiently detailed to notify the parties of the issues.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214754","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/daniel-emerson-plaintiff-appellant-v-prestressed-casting-company-defendan-d38424","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38164:2024-10-29","opinionId":"b07e28bb-3704-5add-b706-74df0d99db44","slug":"lucas-holterman-appellant-v-laverne-copeland-respondent-d38164","caseName":"LUCAS HOLTERMAN, Appellant\nvs.\nLAVERNE COPELAND, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38164","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-29","year":2024,"display_summary":"Lucas Holterman, an employee of Holterman Logging, was severely injured by a falling dead tree while working on land owned by Laverne Copeland. Holterman sued Copeland on theories of premises liability and inherently dangerous activity. The trial court granted summary judgment for Copeland, finding that she did not retain control of the property and logging was not inherently dangerous. The appellate court affirmed, holding that logging is not an inherently dangerous activity as a matter of law and that Copeland owed no duty of care under premises liability due to the independent contractor rule.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","negligence","summary-judgment","other","workers-compensation"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214094","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lucas-holterman-appellant-v-laverne-copeland-respondent-d38164","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112371:2024-10-22","opinionId":"5c708fc0-e64d-54d0-87ff-1fe0a0d774dc","slug":"jason-wolk-et-al-appellants-v-grinnell-mutual-resinsurance-company-respon-112371","caseName":"Jason Wolk, et al., Appellants, v. Grinnell Mutual Resinsurance Company, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112371","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-22","year":2024,"display_summary":"Jason Wolk and Jeffrey Meyer, who were injured while working, disputed with Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company over a workers' compensation subrogation lien. After a personal injury suit and a subsequent settlement agreement, Appellants sought a declaratory judgment to interpret Section 287.150.3 and their agreement. The trial court awarded Grinnell the full amount of its lien, finding no mutual mistake in the agreement. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's amended judgment, agreeing with its interpretation of the statute and declining to rescind the settlement agreement.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213837","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jason-wolk-et-al-appellants-v-grinnell-mutual-resinsurance-company-respon-112371","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37237:2024-08-20","opinionId":"1ac28538-fb5b-5f5c-af9d-020faf61e5fc","slug":"amie-elsworth-claimant-respondent-v-wayne-county-missouri-employer-appell-d37237","caseName":"AMIE ELSWORTH, Claimant-Respondent\nv.\nWAYNE COUNTY, MISSOURI, Employer-Appellant and MISSOURI ASSOC. of COUNTIES, Insurer-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37237","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Wayne County and its insurer appealed a circuit court judgment ordering them to pay workers' compensation benefits to Amie Elsworth, the widow of an employee who died after sustaining a work-related injury. The employer argued that Elsworth's entitlement to benefits under the Schoemehl doctrine was not raised or adjudicated by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Commission's factual findings, which were affirmed in a prior appeal, implicitly resolved the Schoemehl issue, making the circuit court's entry of judgment a ministerial act.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211794","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/amie-elsworth-claimant-respondent-v-wayne-county-missouri-employer-appell-d37237","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112132:2024-07-30","opinionId":"294ab0eb-0134-52d6-b03f-d9feec734d8a","slug":"james-eckardt-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-the-secon-112132","caseName":"James Eckardt, Appellant, vs. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent/Cross-Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112132","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Claimant James Eckardt appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of Second Injury Fund benefits for his permanent total disability from multiple work injuries. The Fund cross-appealed the inclusion of his occupational disease in the award. The appellate court reversed the denial of Fund benefits, finding the Commission erred by misinterpreting the relevant statute and precedent regarding non-qualifying disabilities. The court affirmed the Commission's determination that occupational diseases, specifically carpal tunnel syndrome, qualify as preexisting compensable injuries under the Second Injury Fund statute.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","administrative-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210056","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-eckardt-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-the-secon-112132","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37986:2024-06-11","opinionId":"3c144f5a-5099-550e-9c73-7bcafe8e85e8","slug":"joe-david-hudson-plaintiff-respondent-v-joplin-regional-stockyards-inc-de-d37986","caseName":"JOE DAVID HUDSON, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nJOPLIN REGIONAL STOCKYARDS, INC., Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37986","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-11","year":2024,"display_summary":"Joe David Hudson (Employee) and Joplin Regional Stockyards, Inc. (Employer) entered into a workers' compensation settlement agreement, which was later registered as a judgment. When Employee sought to revive the judgment, Employer opposed, arguing it was satisfied. The circuit court revived the judgment, and Employer appealed. The Southern District dismissed the appeal, holding that Employer lacked standing because it was not aggrieved by the judgment's revival, and awarded Employee damages for a frivolous appeal.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","workers-compensation","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208915","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joe-david-hudson-plaintiff-respondent-v-joplin-regional-stockyards-inc-de-d37986","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111923:2024-05-28","opinionId":"932bd214-3d7a-54d6-92c4-d3fd102b7bbb","slug":"scott-caldwell-appellant-v-unifirst-corporation-and-michael-dean-seever-i-111923","caseName":"Scott Caldwell, Appellant, vs. Unifirst Corporation and Michael Dean Seever II, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111923","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-28","year":2024,"display_summary":"Scott Caldwell sued UniFirst Corporation and Michael Dean Seever II, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the MHRA, and retaliation under the Workers' Compensation Law, after he was terminated following a back injury. A jury found in Caldwell's favor on all claims, but the trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for the defendants. The appellate court reversed the JNOV on the MHRA claims, finding substantial evidence supported the jury's verdicts, but affirmed the JNOV on the workers' compensation retaliation claim due to a lack of causal evidence. The case was remanded for reinstatement of the MHRA verdicts and a determination of attorney fees.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review","workers-compensation"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208477","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/scott-caldwell-appellant-v-unifirst-corporation-and-michael-dean-seever-i-111923","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38016:2024-05-07","opinionId":"6019ef3d-0f49-5460-80ab-394eab5ba884","slug":"david-casey-claimant-appellant-v-missouri-state-treasurer-as-custodian-of-d38016","caseName":"DAVID CASEY, Claimant-Appellant\nv.\nMISSOURI STATE TREASURER as CUSTODIAN of the SECOND INJURY FUND, Additional Party-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38016","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-07","year":2024,"display_summary":"David Casey appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision, which reversed an Administrative Law Judge's award of permanent total disability (PTD) benefits from the Second Injury Fund (SIF). Casey argued the Commission erred in denying PTD benefits by misinterpreting the 50-week threshold for combining preexisting disabilities and by failing to consider expert opinions. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's denial, finding that the issue of combining multiple disabilities was moot because one preexisting disability met the 50-week threshold, and upholding the Commission's credibility determination regarding the combination of the qualifying right-knee disability and the primary injury.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207953","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-casey-claimant-appellant-v-missouri-state-treasurer-as-custodian-of-d38016","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100193:2024-04-30","opinionId":"8bdb6ab9-1b9d-546b-9f22-957e5a4cdcaf","slug":"david-steele-respondent-v-johnson-controls-inc-appellant-100193","caseName":"David Steele, Respondent, v. Johnson Controls, Inc., Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100193","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-04-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"David Steele obtained a default judgment against Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) for workers' compensation retaliation, including compensatory and punitive damages. JCI moved to set aside the default judgment, arguing good cause due to misrouted service documents and asserting alternate bases under Rules 75.01 and 74.06(b)(1), and plain error regarding punitive damages. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of JCI's motion, holding that JCI failed to prove good cause, that Rules 75.01 and 74.06(b)(1) do not provide alternative grounds, and that plain error review of the underlying default judgment's punitive damages award was unavailable.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","workers-compensation"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207694","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-steele-respondent-v-johnson-controls-inc-appellant-100193","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111833:2024-04-23","opinionId":"7ec1e22e-c316-50d7-b758-1083d84e1e8b","slug":"tamar-godfrey-appellant-v-metropolitan-st-louis-sewer-district-respondent-111833","caseName":"Tamar Godfrey, Appellant, vs. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111833","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Tamar Godfrey appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision affirming the dismissal of her workers' compensation claim for failure to prosecute. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that Godfrey's notice of appeal was untimely filed three days after the statutory deadline. The court further held that Godfrey's motion for reconsideration did not extend the deadline, as it was treated as an untimely amended application for review.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","appellate-procedure","administrative-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207503","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tamar-godfrey-appellant-v-metropolitan-st-louis-sewer-district-respondent-111833","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111969:2024-03-12","opinionId":"169b5a46-c6e8-5d6a-8634-8323465c9dfc","slug":"shannon-noonan-appellant-v-troyeco-llc-and-division-of-employment-securit-111969","caseName":"Shannon Noonan, Appellant, vs. Troyeco, LLC, and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111969","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"Shannon Noonan appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying her unemployment benefits claim. Noonan, a part-time frozen yogurt shop employee, did not return to work after spring break in March 2020 due to a COVID-19 stay-at-home order, despite the employer remaining open and her maintaining an apartment in Springfield. The Commission found she voluntarily quit without good cause attributable to her employer. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that her decision to not return to work was not good cause attributable to the employer, as work was available and she had the option to return.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","employment-law","workers-compensation"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206347","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/shannon-noonan-appellant-v-troyeco-llc-and-division-of-employment-securit-111969","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37841:2024-01-10","opinionId":"9e8342e2-7bcf-55be-8418-5eb0f71e4a9b","slug":"dependent-of-russell-hayes-deceased-susan-hayes-appellant-v-city-of-eldor-d37841","caseName":"DEPENDENT [] OF RUSSELL HAYES, Deceased\nSUSAN HAYES, Appellant\nvs.\nCITY OF ELDORADO SPRINGS, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37841","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-01-10","year":2024,"display_summary":"Susan Hayes appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's award of $40 per week in death benefits for her husband, a volunteer firefighter who died in the line of duty. The Commission had determined his weekly wage could not be calculated under section 287.250.1(6) and instead applied section 287.250.4. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the Commission misapplied the law by relying on an inapplicable prior case and by failing to properly consider evidence of the \"usual wage for similar services\" provided by the appellant's expert witnesses.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=204493","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dependent-of-russell-hayes-deceased-susan-hayes-appellant-v-city-of-eldor-d37841","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37966:2023-12-05","opinionId":"4d2c403a-d364-5bd5-9953-f91ddf64f581","slug":"virgel-bird-deceased-karen-bird-appellant-v-us-assets-recovery-llc-respon-d37966","caseName":"VIRGEL BIRD (DECEASED) \nKAREN BIRD, Appellant\nv.\nUS ASSETS RECOVERY LLC, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37966","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-12-05","year":2023,"display_summary":"Karen Bird, the ex-spouse of a deceased employee, appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of her claim for workers' compensation death benefits. Bird argued she was a \"dependent\" under section 287.240, despite being divorced from the employee, because they continued to live together and he supported her. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that the plain and unambiguous language of section 287.240 does not create a catch-all category for dependents beyond spouses and children, and therefore Bird did not qualify.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203273","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/virgel-bird-deceased-karen-bird-appellant-v-us-assets-recovery-llc-respon-d37966","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99995:2023-11-21","opinionId":"b8fa578a-4826-55bc-bccc-37cad6d028a6","slug":"maryann-gray-respondentcross-appellant-v-hawthorn-childrens-psychiatric-h-c99995","caseName":"Maryann Gray, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. Hawthorn Children's Psychiatric Hospital/State of Missouri, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, and Treasurer of the State of Missouri, as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Cross-Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99995","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-11-21","year":2023,"display_summary":"Maryann Gray filed workers' compensation claims, which an administrative law judge denied. Gray attempted to file applications for review with the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, but the initial mailing was returned for insufficient postage. The Commission ultimately found Gray's applications were timely filed due to a postal service error, and the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission's factual findings regarding the September 30, 2019 postmark and sufficient postage were binding and supported by evidence.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202960","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/maryann-gray-respondentcross-appellant-v-hawthorn-childrens-psychiatric-h-c99995","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100006:2023-11-21","opinionId":"6f1c2d70-d483-564e-a010-e0659e6512e0","slug":"jeannie-e-harper-respondent-v-springfield-rehab-and-health-care-centernhc-100006","caseName":"Jeannie E. Harper, Respondent, vs. Springfield Rehab and Health Care Center/NHC Health, Appellant, Premier Group Insurance Company Corvel Enterprise Company, Inc. (TPA), Appellant, and Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent.; Jeannie E. Harper, Respondent, vs. Springfield Rehab and Health Care Center/NHC Health, Appellant, Premier Group Insurance Company Corvel Enterprise Company, Inc. (TPA), Appellant, and Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100006","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-11-21","year":2023,"display_summary":"Jeannie Harper, a nurse, appealed a Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (LIRC) final award granting her permanent total disability benefits under the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law. Springfield Rehab and Health Care Center/NHC Health appealed the LIRC's decision, arguing that Harper did not suffer a compensable injury arising from a workplace accident, was not permanently and totally disabled, and was not entitled to future medical care. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the LIRC's award, finding its decision was supported by competent and substantial evidence.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202961","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jeannie-e-harper-respondent-v-springfield-rehab-and-health-care-centernhc-100006","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111512:2023-11-21","opinionId":"66ed6030-e69c-59cb-bcf8-aa455e9e7591","slug":"naina-chuhan-appellant-v-ergosafe-products-llc-et-al-respondent-111512","caseName":"Naina Chuhan, Appellant, v. Ergosafe Products LLC, et al., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111512","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-11-21","year":2023,"display_summary":"Naina Chuhan appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's dismissal of her Application for Review, which challenged an administrative law judge's dismissal of her workers' compensation claim for failure to prosecute. Chuhan argued her application met the pleading requirements of 8 C.S.R. 20-3.030(3)(A). The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that Chuhan's application failed to specifically state the reasons the administrative law judge's findings were not properly supported, as required by the regulation.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","workers-compensation","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202935","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/naina-chuhan-appellant-v-ergosafe-products-llc-et-al-respondent-111512","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85464:2023-10-10","opinionId":"ce05415d-70bc-527f-b992-502016ec5d07","slug":"roslyn-t-barnes-v-athene-annuity-life-assurance-company-fka-liberty-life-d85464","caseName":"Roslyn T. Barnes\nvs.\nAthene Annuity & Life Assurance Company f/k/a Liberty Life Insurance f/k/a Business Men's Assurance Company of America, et al.","caseNumber":"WD85464","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-10-10","year":2023,"display_summary":"Roslyn T. Barnes sued Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company for damages related to asbestos exposure and mesothelioma. Athene moved for summary judgment, asserting that workers' compensation was Barnes's exclusive remedy due to an insurance policy with enhanced mesothelioma benefits. The trial court granted summary judgment for Athene. The appellate court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the authenticity and validity of Athene's purported workers' compensation insurance policy and remanded the case, including Barnes's motion for sanctions, for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","summary-judgment","insurance","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201873","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/roslyn-t-barnes-v-athene-annuity-life-assurance-company-fka-liberty-life-d85464","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111129:2023-09-26","opinionId":"0da6400b-a3e5-5f3e-bf1a-d03dc7b19f24","slug":"pamela-mccoy-appellant-v-meridian-medical-technology-new-hampshire-insura-111129","caseName":"Pamela McCoy, Appellant, v. Meridian Medical Technology, New Hampshire Insurance Co., and Missouri State Treasurer, as Custodian of Second Injury Fund, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111129","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-26","year":2023,"display_summary":"Pamela McCoy appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying her claim for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits from the Second Injury Fund. McCoy alleged her preexisting disabilities combined with a primary work injury rendered her permanently and totally disabled. The Commission found McCoy's expert opinions not credible or persuasive, and the appellate court affirmed, deferring to the Commission's factual and credibility determinations. The court held that McCoy's individual preexisting disabilities did not meet the statutory minimum weeks of permanent partial disability to qualify for Fund liability.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"modified","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201480","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/pamela-mccoy-appellant-v-meridian-medical-technology-new-hampshire-insura-111129","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111004:2023-08-22","opinionId":"5492a331-9284-5c7e-8fea-b5f43873687f","slug":"larry-obermann-appellant-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-as-custodia-111004","caseName":"Larry Obermann, Appellant, vs. Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111004","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-08-22","year":2023,"display_summary":"Larry Obermann sought Permanent Total Disability (PTD) benefits from the Second Injury Fund after a workplace shoulder injury, asserting his PTD resulted from this injury combined with qualifying preexisting disabilities. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denied his claim, finding no expert opined that his PTD resulted solely from the primary injury and qualifying preexisting disabilities, exclusive of a non-qualifying knee injury. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Commission's dispositive factual finding was unsupported by competent and substantial evidence, as Obermann's vocational expert did opine PTD based on the primary injury and qualifying feet injuries, without relying on the non-qualifying knee injury. The case was remanded with instructions to enter an award of PTD benefits for Obermann.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=198795","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/larry-obermann-appellant-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-as-custodia-111004","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37420:2023-08-17","opinionId":"397e853f-5c9f-562f-89ab-050c13fa03ac","slug":"asia-ashby-plaintiff-appellant-v-woodridge-of-missouri-inc-et-al-defendan-d37420","caseName":"ASIA ASHBY, Plaintiff-Appellant\nvs.\nWOODRIDGE OF MISSOURI, INC., et al., Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37420","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-08-17","year":2023,"display_summary":"Asia Ashby appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, Piney Ridge, on her disability discrimination and workers' compensation retaliation claims. Ashby alleged discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act and retaliation under the Workers' Compensation Law after she was terminated for violating the company's drug-free workplace policy. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Ashby failed to establish a prima facie case for either claim and that the policy was not discriminatory as a matter of law.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","summary-judgment","workers-compensation","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=198673","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/asia-ashby-plaintiff-appellant-v-woodridge-of-missouri-inc-et-al-defendan-d37420","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110859:2023-07-25","opinionId":"d669e148-8521-58ae-8f6c-2eafede69899","slug":"orthopedic-ambulatory-surgery-center-of-chesterfield-llc-and-chesterfield-110859","caseName":"Orthopedic Ambulatory Surgery Center of Chesterfield, LLC, and Chesterfield Spine Center, LLC, Appellants, vs. Sharpe Holdings, Inc., et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED110859","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-07-25","year":2023,"display_summary":"Orthopedic Ambulatory Surgery Center of Chesterfield, LLC, and Chesterfield Spine Center, LLC, health care providers, sued numerous employers and their workers' compensation insurers for unpaid medical charges. The providers asserted common law claims after receiving partial payment for care rendered under the Missouri Workers' Compensation Act. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employers and insurers, finding the Act provides an exclusive remedy for such disputes. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Act's provisions and associated regulations exclusively govern medical fee disputes, thereby preempting common law claims.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","administrative-law","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=197856","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/orthopedic-ambulatory-surgery-center-of-chesterfield-llc-and-chesterfield-110859","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37293:2023-07-19","opinionId":"5dad8da6-1e86-5010-af5f-d238260e47c5","slug":"william-b-watson-respondent-v-tuthill-corporation-and-sentry-insurance-co-d37293","caseName":"WILLIAM B. WATSON, Respondent\nvs.\nTUTHILL CORPORATION and SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellants\nAnd\nTREASURER OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI AS CUSTODIAN OF THE SECOND INJURY FUND, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37293","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-07-19","year":2023,"display_summary":"William Watson, a claimant, sustained a lower back injury and a subsequent neck injury while employed by Tuthill Corporation. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission found both injuries compensable, determined the back injury alone rendered him permanently and totally disabled, and concluded the Second Injury Fund was not liable. Employer and its insurer appealed, challenging the prevailing factor findings, the sufficiency of evidence for permanent total disability, and the Fund's non-liability. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's award, finding it supported by substantial and competent evidence and that the Commission did not err in its determination regarding the Fund.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=197693","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/william-b-watson-respondent-v-tuthill-corporation-and-sentry-insurance-co-d37293","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85681:2023-06-20","opinionId":"cb297fc2-a80f-5444-8fb5-53d398f98a18","slug":"david-steele-v-johnson-controls-inc-d85681","caseName":"David Steele\nvs. \nJohnson Controls, Inc.","caseNumber":"WD85681","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-06-20","year":2023,"display_summary":"David Steele sued his employer, Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI), alleging workers' compensation retaliation and discrimination. After JCI failed to respond, the trial court entered a default judgment against JCI, awarding Steele compensatory and punitive damages. JCI appealed the denial of its motion to set aside the default judgment and the punitive damages award. The appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying JCI's motion to set aside for lack of good cause and a meritorious defense, and that JCI was not entitled to appellate review of the punitive damages award due to procedural failures.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","workers-compensation","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196774","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-steele-v-johnson-controls-inc-d85681","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85780:2023-05-30","opinionId":"80b350c5-c89a-5e92-a49e-229805aadfad","slug":"city-of-clinton-v-robert-dahman-d85780","caseName":"City of Clinton\nvs. \nRobert Dahman","caseNumber":"WD85780","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-05-30","year":2023,"display_summary":"Robert Dahman, a former police officer for the City of Clinton, sought workers' compensation benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after responding to the fatal shooting of a fellow officer. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission awarded him benefits, finding his PTSD was a compensable occupational disease caused by \"extraordinary and unusual\" work-related stress. The City appealed, arguing Dahman failed to meet the statutory requirement. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's award, concluding that sufficient competent evidence supported the finding that Dahman's work-related stress was extraordinary and unusual by objective standards.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195893","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/city-of-clinton-v-robert-dahman-d85780","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85570:2023-05-23","opinionId":"e5742c31-a9d5-5b29-a6ee-831d2f9aea3c","slug":"timothy-w-johnes-v-division-of-employment-security-d85570","caseName":"Timothy W. Johnes\nvs.\nDivision of Employment Security","caseNumber":"WD85570","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-05-23","year":2023,"display_summary":"Timothy W. Johnes appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying his appeal of prior decisions that found he was improperly paid unemployment benefits because he was unavailable for work. The Western District reversed and remanded, finding insufficient evidence to support the Commission's decision and that the Commission abused its discretion in dismissing Johnes's appeal for failure to appear at hearings. The court also found that a subsequent hearing notice vacated a prior dismissal, making Johnes's application for review timely.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","workers-compensation"],"outcomeNorm":"vacated","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195659","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/timothy-w-johnes-v-division-of-employment-security-d85570","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99670:2023-05-16","opinionId":"907ccee5-df4e-5fa2-923c-621bc0bf6ab4","slug":"john-lisle-appellant-v-meyer-electric-co-inc-respondent-c99670","caseName":"John Lisle, Appellant, vs. Meyer Electric Co., Inc., Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99670","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-05-16","year":2023,"display_summary":"John Lisle appealed the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of Meyer Electric Co., Inc., on his claim that Meyer Electric violated section 287.780 RSMo by refusing to rehire him in retaliation for exercising workers' compensation rights during prior employment. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that section 287.780, when strictly construed, applies only to discrimination against current employees. The Court concluded that Lisle was not an employee of Meyer Electric at the time of the alleged discriminatory refusal to rehire, thus negating an essential element of his claim.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","employment-law","summary-judgment","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195474","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-lisle-appellant-v-meyer-electric-co-inc-respondent-c99670","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85427:2023-02-21","opinionId":"925de674-16e3-50a5-8167-8ac1461c2f4d","slug":"lme-inc-v-robert-powell-and-second-injury-fund-d85427","caseName":"LME, Inc. \nvs. \nRobert Powell and Second Injury Fund","caseNumber":"WD85427","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-02-21","year":2023,"display_summary":"LME, Inc. (Employer) appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's award of permanent total disability (PTD) benefits and future medical care to Robert Powell (Employee). Employer argued the Commission erred by not dismissing the claim because the hearing exceeded statutory time limits and by misstating the parties' agreement on the maximum medical improvement (MMI) date. The appellate court affirmed, finding the Employer failed to preserve the timing issue and was bound by its stipulation to the MMI date, which applied to all conditions.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192616","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lme-inc-v-robert-powell-and-second-injury-fund-d85427","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110715:2023-02-14","opinionId":"b569846f-84f1-579d-85a7-c626f08a775e","slug":"keith-lewis-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-second-injury-fund-respondent-110715","caseName":"Keith Lewis, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Second Injury Fund, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110715","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-02-14","year":2023,"display_summary":"Keith Lewis appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision dismissing his application for review of an Administrative Law Judge's dismissal of his workers' compensation claim against the Second Injury Fund. The appellate court found that Lewis's brief failed to substantially comply with Rule 84.04, which governs appellate briefing requirements. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, holding that nothing was preserved for appellate review due to the briefing deficiencies.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","workers-compensation","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192421","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/keith-lewis-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-second-injury-fund-respondent-110715","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37268:2023-02-06","opinionId":"49ae45da-cf45-5309-b3a6-eea282a2786d","slug":"jeannie-e-harper-claimant-respondent-v-springfield-rehab-and-health-care-d37268","caseName":"JEANNIE E. HARPER, Claimant-Respondent\nvs.\nSPRINGFIELD REHAB AND HEALTH CARE CENTER/NHC HEALTH, Employer-Appellant\nPREMIER GROUP INSURANCE COMPANY CORVEL ENTERPRISE COMPANY, INC. (TPA), Insurer-Appellant\nand\nTREASURER OF MISSOURI AS CUSTODIAN OF THE SECOND INJURY FUND, Additional Party-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37268","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-02-06","year":2023,"display_summary":"Employer Springfield Rehab and Health Care Center and its insurer appealed a final award from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which found Claimant Jeannie E. Harper permanently and totally disabled from a work injury and entitled to future medical care. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's award, denying most of Employer's points for non-compliance with Rule 84.04. The court granted ex gratia review to one point, holding that the Commission did not legally err in finding an \"accident\" where Claimant's unusual strain produced objective symptoms of injury at the time, as evidenced by a felt \"pull\" and subsequent difficulty walking during the same work shift.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","appellate-procedure","administrative-law","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192274","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jeannie-e-harper-claimant-respondent-v-springfield-rehab-and-health-care-d37268","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99563:2023-01-10","opinionId":"c913a12c-acaf-5ed4-8bf4-02d73190d792","slug":"james-swafford-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-second-i-c99563","caseName":"James Swafford, Appellant, vs. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99563","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-01-10","year":2023,"display_summary":"James Swafford appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying his claim for permanent total disability benefits from the Second Injury Fund. Swafford argued the Commission disregarded expert testimony establishing a causal relationship between his preexisting disabilities and primary injury. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that Swafford failed to establish his preexisting disabilities \"directly and significantly aggravated or accelerated\" his primary injury under section 287.220.3(2)(a)a(iii). The Court found the medical evidence presented was insufficient to meet this statutory standard.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","other","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191587","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-swafford-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-second-i-c99563","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99493:2023-01-10","opinionId":"51805452-bf0a-57c9-a585-2aa0f0b70a97","slug":"gary-m-weibrecht-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-second-c99493","caseName":"Gary M. Weibrecht, Appellant, vs. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99493","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-01-10","year":2023,"display_summary":"Gary Weibrecht appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision affirming an administrative law judge's denial of his claim for Second Injury Fund benefits. Weibrecht sought to reopen the record to submit additional evidence after a Supreme Court opinion clarified the applicable statutory section for his claim. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that the ALJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Weibrecht's post-hearing motions because the statutory language was clear and Weibrecht could have presented alternative arguments at the initial hearing.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191586","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gary-m-weibrecht-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-second-c99493","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99605:2023-01-10","opinionId":"80e818bd-a55f-558b-8b08-15b0f21cc084","slug":"thomas-dubuc-appellant-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-c99605","caseName":"Thomas Dubuc, Appellant, vs. Treasurer of the State of Missouri Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99605","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-01-10","year":2023,"display_summary":"Thomas Dubuc appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of Second Injury Fund benefits, challenging its refusal to allow additional discovery and evidence after a prior remand and its finding that he lacked \"medically documented\" preexisting disabilities. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's decision. The Court held that the prior remand did not require additional evidence and that Dubuc's self-reported medical history was insufficient to meet the \"medically documented\" requirement under section 287.220.3. It also found that generic expert testimony did not establish that his preexisting disabilities directly and significantly aggravated his primary injury.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191588","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/thomas-dubuc-appellant-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-c99605","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110399:2022-12-27","opinionId":"cea332e3-a836-5696-8437-4b798f59d8f9","slug":"amy-j-ruhl-respondent-v-kas-enterprises-llc-appellant-and-division-of-emp-110399","caseName":"Amy J. Ruhl, Respondent, vs. K.A.S. Enterprises, LLC, Appellant, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110399","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-12-27","year":2022,"display_summary":"K.A.S. Enterprises, a used-car dealership, appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision that Amy Ruhl was not disqualified from unemployment benefits after being fired. K.A.S. argued Ruhl committed unemployment fraud, that the Commission's factual findings were unsupported, and that her discharge was for misconduct. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, finding the fraud claim unripe and inadequately briefed, deferring to the Commission's factual findings and credibility determinations, and concluding that K.A.S. failed to prove Ruhl was discharged for misconduct.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191439","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/amy-j-ruhl-respondent-v-kas-enterprises-llc-appellant-and-division-of-emp-110399","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85135:2022-11-29","opinionId":"50477176-acb8-5d0c-a812-6933e8fea77b","slug":"latice-hicks-v-saint-lukes-northland-smithville-d85135","caseName":"Latice Hicks \nvs. \nSaint Luke's Northland-Smithville","caseNumber":"WD85135","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-11-29","year":2022,"display_summary":"Latice Hicks appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Saint Luke's Northland-Smithville on her claims of workers' compensation retaliation and hostile work environment. The appellate court dismissed Hicks' appeal, finding that her brief failed to substantially comply with the briefing requirements of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.04. Specifically, the court identified deficiencies in her Points Relied On, Statement of Facts, and Argument sections, which prevented the court from reaching the merits of the appeal.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","employment-law","workers-compensation"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190774","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/latice-hicks-v-saint-lukes-northland-smithville-d85135","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110331:2022-11-22","opinionId":"4b2cb975-86ff-57b9-b93b-afb511fb327e","slug":"billy-hood-appellant-v-michael-menech-vandalia-area-historical-society-an-110331","caseName":"Billy Hood, Appellant, vs. Michael Menech, Vandalia Area Historical Society and Missouri State Treasurer as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED110331","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-11-22","year":2022,"display_summary":"Billy Hood, an injured worker, appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying him workers' compensation benefits and ordering him to reimburse the Second Injury Fund. Hood had filed both a workers' compensation claim against his uninsured employer, Michael Menech, and a civil negligence action against Menech and the Vandalia Area Historical Society, which he settled for $53,000. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's finding that Hood's acceptance of the civil settlement constituted an election of remedies, barring him from receiving workers' compensation benefits and requiring reimbursement of funds already paid by the Second Injury Fund.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","civil-procedure","administrative-law","insurance"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190654","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/billy-hood-appellant-v-michael-menech-vandalia-area-historical-society-an-110331","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85177:2022-11-22","opinionId":"927345ba-3610-51cb-8538-0ce385d4af35","slug":"kathryn-crowley-v-clarcorgeneral-electric-and-treasurer-of-the-state-of-m-d85177","caseName":"Kathryn Crowley\nvs. \nClarcor/General Electric and Treasurer of the State of Missouri, Custodian of the Second Injury Fund","caseNumber":"WD85177","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-11-22","year":2022,"display_summary":"Kathryn Crowley appealed a decision by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission regarding her workers' compensation claim against Clarcor/General Electric and the Second Injury Fund. The Commission had found Crowley engaged in post-injury misconduct, denying her temporary total disability benefits, but awarding permanent partial disability benefits. The appellate court dismissed Crowley's appeal due to serious deficiencies in her appellate brief, including violations of Rule 84.04's requirements for points relied on, statements of preservation, and citations to the record.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","workers-compensation","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190599","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kathryn-crowley-v-clarcorgeneral-electric-and-treasurer-of-the-state-of-m-d85177","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85031:2022-11-22","opinionId":"0dbb7e4a-07a4-5da5-96b7-448f7ec84ba4","slug":"donald-brooks-v-william-j-laurie-and-crown-center-farms-inc-d85031","caseName":"Donald Brooks\nvs. \nWilliam J. Laurie and Crown Center Farms, Inc.","caseNumber":"WD85031","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-11-22","year":2022,"display_summary":"Donald Brooks sued William Laurie and Crown Center Farms, Inc. for injuries sustained while cutting trees, alleging negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding Crown Center Farms was Brooks's statutory employer under the Workers' Compensation Law, thus providing exclusive remedy, and Laurie was an employee shielded from liability. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether tree cutting was within Crown Center Farms' \"usual business\" to establish statutory employer status, and consequently, Laurie's immunity as an employee also failed.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190597","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/donald-brooks-v-william-j-laurie-and-crown-center-farms-inc-d85031","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37397:2022-11-18","opinionId":"c10984fe-4e06-512e-bc6b-b5d8225510cf","slug":"anil-mueller-claimant-appellant-v-peoplease-corporation-employer-responde-d37397","caseName":"ANIL MUELLER, Claimant-Appellant\nvs.\nPEOPLEASE CORPORATION, Employer-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37397","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-11-18","year":2022,"display_summary":"Anil Mueller, a claimant, appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's final award, which affirmed in part an Administrative Law Judge's decision regarding his workers' compensation claim against Peoplease Corporation. The Commission found Mueller sustained a compensable injury but denied full medical expenses and permanent disability compensation. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, finding no error in the denial of permanent disability benefits or the partial award of medical expenses.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","evidence","administrative-law"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190573","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/anil-mueller-claimant-appellant-v-peoplease-corporation-employer-responde-d37397","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85172:2022-09-27","opinionId":"7160aa69-1c85-5cce-99db-db3289cc2cf6","slug":"sarah-channel-lauren-channel-mary-channel-v-stephen-walker-individually-d85172","caseName":"Sarah Channel, Lauren Channel, Mary Channel\nvs. \nStephen Walker, Individually","caseNumber":"WD85172","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-09-27","year":2022,"display_summary":"Sarah, Lauren, and Mary Channel appealed the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of Stephen Walker in their wrongful death action. They alleged Walker, a co-employee and manager, intentionally and negligently caused Thomas Channel's heat-related death by failing to follow heat stress protocols and assigning him to a long route in a truck without air conditioning. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Walker's alleged actions were encompassed within the employer's nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace and did not constitute a breach of an independent duty of care.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","negligence","summary-judgment","employment-law","wrongful-death"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=189376","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sarah-channel-lauren-channel-mary-channel-v-stephen-walker-individually-d85172","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99381:2022-07-26","opinionId":"9d6c4de5-ac19-5501-8d23-dca230fff75b","slug":"robert-march-appellant-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-c99381","caseName":"Robert March, Appellant, vs. Treasurer of the State of Missouri - Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99381","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2022-07-26","year":2022,"display_summary":"Robert March appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of permanent total disability (PTD) benefits from the Second Injury Fund. The commission found March failed to prove that the combination of his preexisting disabilities and primary work-related injuries, rather than his preexisting disabilities alone, rendered him permanently and totally disabled. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the commission correctly applied the burden of persuasion, which requires a claimant to show it is \"more likely true than not true\" that the combined injuries caused PTD, and that \"equally likely\" evidence fails to meet this burden.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=188194","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-march-appellant-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-c99381","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85163:2022-07-26","opinionId":"ec9b0bd7-956d-516f-8854-f826e0606535","slug":"ronald-lamy-v-stahl-speciality-company-d85163","caseName":"Ronald Lamy\nvs.\nStahl Speciality Company","caseNumber":"WD85163","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-07-26","year":2022,"display_summary":"Ronald Lamy appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of his workers' compensation claim for a left wrist injury, arguing an earlier compromise settlement only covered his left shoulder. The Commission had concluded the prior settlement, which addressed a \"left upper extremity\" injury, encompassed the wrist injury and thus exhausted its jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed, finding no legal error in the Commission's determination that the broad language of the compromise settlement, coupled with Lamy's knowledge of the wrist condition, precluded the new claim.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","contracts","administrative-law","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=188094","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ronald-lamy-v-stahl-speciality-company-d85163","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37311:2022-07-20","opinionId":"3dd29a92-aa07-5069-b40b-3cf26ceb7986","slug":"treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-the-second-injury-fund-d37311","caseName":"TREASURER OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, AS CUSTODIAN OF THE SECOND INJURY FUND, Petitioner-Respondent\nv.\nBARRET S. VAN HORN, Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37311","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-07-20","year":2022,"display_summary":"Barret Van Horn appealed the denial of his Rule 74.06(b) motion to set aside an amended judgment ordering him to reimburse the Second Injury Fund $34,345 for workers' compensation expenses. He argued the judgment was void because the Workers' Compensation Division lacked jurisdiction or authority to enter liability against him and denied him due process. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed the circuit court's denial, holding that the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction over the reimbursement action and any alleged error by the Division did not render the judgment void. The court further found that Van Horn waived his due process challenge by failing to raise it at the earliest opportunity.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=188053","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-the-second-injury-fund-d37311","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110111:2022-07-19","opinionId":"5c9e0e03-b589-53db-a0b9-b25d92c2c078","slug":"shannon-noonan-appellant-v-troyeco-llc-and-division-of-employment-securit-110111","caseName":"Shannon Noonan, Appellant, vs. Troyeco, LLC, and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED110111","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-07-19","year":2022,"display_summary":"Shannon Noonan appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying her unemployment benefits due to a late appeal filing. The Commission affirmed the Appeals Tribunal's finding that Noonan failed to show good cause for the delay. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, instructing the Appeals Tribunal to consider additional material records from the Division of Employment Security that were not part of the original record.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","workers-compensation"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187996","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/shannon-noonan-appellant-v-troyeco-llc-and-division-of-employment-securit-110111","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":24,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99384:2022-07-12","opinionId":"4f6b5417-c177-574d-8052-7734a87852b2","slug":"travis-poke-appellant-v-independence-school-district-respondent-c99384","caseName":"Travis Poke, Appellant, vs. Independence School District, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99384","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2022-07-12","year":2022,"display_summary":"Travis Poke sued the Independence School District, alleging he was fired in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the school district, finding it was protected by sovereign immunity. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plain language of sections 287.780 and 287.030, read together, constitutes an express waiver of sovereign immunity for workers' compensation retaliation claims against school districts.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187877","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/travis-poke-appellant-v-independence-school-district-respondent-c99384","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37103:2022-07-11","opinionId":"ae401beb-e023-5a91-a901-473928264ce0","slug":"juanita-kurbursky-appellantrespondent-v-independent-in-home-services-llc-d37103","caseName":"JUANITA KURBURSKY, Appellant/Respondent\nvs.\nINDEPENDENT IN-HOME SERVICES, LLC., Respondent/Cross-Appellant\nand\nTREASURER OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI-CUSTODIAN 2ND INJURY FUND, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37103","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-07-11","year":2022,"display_summary":"Juanita Kurbursky appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's final award regarding her workers' compensation claim, challenging the denial of permanent total disability benefits, past and future medical care liability, and the calculation of permanent partial disability benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's denial of permanent total disability and medical care, deferring to the Commission's credibility and weight determinations. However, the court reversed and remanded the portion of the award concerning permanent partial disability benefits, instructing the Commission to make specific factual findings regarding the average weekly wage calculation under section 287.250.3.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187853","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/juanita-kurbursky-appellantrespondent-v-independent-in-home-services-llc-d37103","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84620:2022-06-07","opinionId":"b9d62cc6-e8e7-527b-87cd-c96d8a0bfcc7","slug":"john-lisle-v-meyer-electric-co-inc-d84620","caseName":"John Lisle\nvs. \nMeyer Electric Co., Inc.","caseNumber":"WD84620","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-06-07","year":2022,"display_summary":"John Lisle appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Meyer Electric Company, Inc., on his claim of retaliatory discrimination under the Workers' Compensation Law. Lisle alleged Meyer Electric refused to rehire him after he filed a workers' compensation claim, arguing the statute protects former employees from post-employment retaliation. The appellate court concluded that section 287.780 does not authorize a claim for retaliation based on acts occurring after an employment relationship has ended. However, due to the general interest and importance of this legal issue of first impression, the court transferred the appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court for final disposition.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","employment-law","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187179","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-lisle-v-meyer-electric-co-inc-d84620","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109776:2022-05-31","opinionId":"c0083da7-3dc7-5936-a21a-65b38eb28153","slug":"surgery-center-partners-llc-dba-timberlake-surgery-respondent-v-mondelez-109776","caseName":"Surgery Center Partners, LLC d/b/a Timberlake Surgery, Respondent, vs. Mondelez International, Inc., and Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED109776","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-05-31","year":2022,"display_summary":"Mondelēz International, Inc. and Indemnity Insurance Company of North America appealed a final award from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, but their appeal was dismissed for substantial non-compliance with Rule 84.04 briefing requirements. Surgery Center Partners, LLC d/b/a Timberlake Surgery cross-appealed the Commission's denial of prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision on the cross-appeal, holding that the relevant workers' compensation statute does not expressly permit prejudgment interest, and strict construction of the law precludes inferring such authority.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","workers-compensation","administrative-law","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187115","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/surgery-center-partners-llc-dba-timberlake-surgery-respondent-v-mondelez-109776","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37212:2022-05-05","opinionId":"f5e1ba4a-c17a-5371-ad25-e43487f0e2a9","slug":"sydney-a-durr-appellant-v-clarks-mountain-nursing-center-americare-system-d37212","caseName":"SYDNEY A. DURR, Appellant\nvs.\nCLARKS MOUNTAIN NURSING CENTER, AMERICARE SYSTEMS INC., and\nSAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37212","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-05-05","year":2022,"display_summary":"Sydney Durr appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of workers' compensation benefits for a knee injury. The Commission found her injury did not arise out of employment and that she was exposed to the same risk in nonemployment life. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that Durr's injury arose from particularized working conditions and job requirements, distinguishing it from general risks of daily life, and directed the Commission to enter an award consistent with the ALJ's findings.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186694","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sydney-a-durr-appellant-v-clarks-mountain-nursing-center-americare-system-d37212","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99280:2022-04-26","opinionId":"c761c846-bb1a-5acc-a1a6-d5974efc05ff","slug":"christopher-klecka-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-the-c99280","caseName":"Christopher Klecka, Appellant, vs. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99280","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2022-04-26","year":2022,"display_summary":"Christopher Klecka appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision, which reversed an administrative law judge's award of permanent and total disability benefits from the Second Injury Fund. The Commission found Klecka failed to prove his permanent and total disability resulted from his primary injury combined only with qualifying preexisting disabilities as required by section 287.220.3. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that expert opinions improperly considering non-qualifying prior injuries could not establish Fund liability.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186458","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-klecka-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-the-c99280","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84765:2022-04-05","opinionId":"c918ceb1-9eea-59e0-8ad3-99e62045a747","slug":"robert-schebaum-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-the-sec-d84765","caseName":"Robert Schebaum\nvs. \nTreasurer of the State of Missouri-Custodian of the Second Injury Fund","caseNumber":"WD84765","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-04-05","year":2022,"display_summary":"Robert Schebaum appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of permanent total disability benefits from the Second Injury Fund. Schebaum, who had preexisting hearing loss and two work-related knee injuries, argued that his hearing loss should qualify as a preexisting disability or at least be considered in determining his employability. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that Schebaum's hearing loss did not qualify as a preexisting disability under the statute because it did not directly and significantly aggravate or accelerate his subsequent work-related injury. The court further clarified that non-qualifying disabilities cannot be considered when determining permanent total disability for Fund liability.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","standard-of-review","administrative-law","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=185876","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-schebaum-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-the-sec-d84765","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84171:2022-03-08","opinionId":"9d22e593-c3ad-57d0-b1db-772044d56e5c","slug":"thomas-dubuc-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-the-second-d84171","caseName":"Thomas Dubuc\nvs. \nTreasurer of the State of Missouri Custodian of the Second Injury Fund","caseNumber":"WD84171","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-03-08","year":2022,"display_summary":"Thomas Dubuc appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of Second Injury Fund benefits, which occurred on remand from a prior appeal. The Commission had denied Dubuc's motion for additional discovery and evidence, interpreting the prior remand as limiting its review to the existing record, and found his preexisting disabilities were not \"medically documented\" under section 287.220.3. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that its prior mandate did not restrict the Commission to the existing record, and denying additional evidence was an abuse of discretion given a significant change in the law. The court also found the Commission erred in its interpretation of \"medically documented,\" clarifying that self-reported medical history in records can satisfy this requirement.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","appellate-procedure","evidence","administrative-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"remanded","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=185014","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/thomas-dubuc-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-the-second-d84171","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109568:2022-02-22","opinionId":"9d96dc73-a3c1-5bde-96ac-7b1b3afdbedb","slug":"bruce-krysl-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-second-inju-109568","caseName":"Bruce Krysl, Appellant, vs. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109568","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-02-22","year":2022,"display_summary":"Claimant Bruce Krysl appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision reversing an award from the Second Injury Fund. Krysl, who had a primary occupational injury and a preexisting diabetic condition, had his claim initially awarded by an ALJ, which the Commission later reversed. After two prior appeals to this court, the Commission again reversed, finding Krysl failed to establish his diabetes was permanent in degree prior to his primary injury. The appellate court reversed the Commission's decision, holding that Krysl's diabetes was a permanent, lifelong condition, thus satisfying the statutory requirement for recovery from the Second Injury Fund.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=184574","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/bruce-krysl-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-second-inju-109568","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37171:2022-01-27","opinionId":"67093f6c-fec9-55ac-88b8-f59d1af1ce45","slug":"jamie-e-overstreet-appellant-v-tamko-building-products-inc-and-ace-americ-d37171","caseName":"JAMIE E. OVERSTREET, Appellant\nvs.\nTAMKO BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., and ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37171","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-01-27","year":2022,"display_summary":"Jamie E. Overstreet appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of workers' compensation benefits for a knee injury he sustained while working for TAMKO Building Products, Inc. The Commission found his injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Overstreet failed to prove the risk source of his injury was related to his employment and that he was not equally exposed to that risk in his normal non-employment life.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=183893","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jamie-e-overstreet-appellant-v-tamko-building-products-inc-and-ace-americ-d37171","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":6,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84430:2021-12-28","opinionId":"f74d1006-8696-50e2-b348-9f1d5f6b6373","slug":"troy-l-greig-v-jonathan-mccaleb-d84430","caseName":"Troy L. Greig\nvs. \nJonathan McCaleb","caseNumber":"WD84430","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-12-28","year":2021,"display_summary":"Jonathan McCaleb, an uninsured employer, appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's order rejecting his application for review of a workers' compensation award to Troy L. Greig. The Commission rejected the application because McCaleb failed to file a mandatory bond, as required for uninsured employers appealing a final award. The appellate court dismissed McCaleb's appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because McCaleb, as an uninsured employer subject to the Workers' Compensation Act, failed to accompany his appeal with the statutorily required bond.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","appellate-procedure","administrative-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182974","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/troy-l-greig-v-jonathan-mccaleb-d84430","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":24,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109591:2021-12-21","opinionId":"f1dede44-f26e-55b8-b58f-618cf5ff9f14","slug":"gary-m-weibrecht-claimantappellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-o-109591","caseName":"Gary M. Weibrecht, Claimant/Appellant, vs. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109591","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-12-21","year":2021,"display_summary":"Claimant Gary Weibrecht appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying his Second Injury Fund benefits. He argued the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred by denying his post-hearing motions to reopen the record and submit additional evidence after a Supreme Court opinion changed the applicable statutory subsection for his claim. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the ALJ had the statutory authority to reopen the record before issuing an award, especially when a change in controlling law provided good cause. The case was sent back for the ALJ to determine the relevance and necessity of the proffered evidence and make further factual findings.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182817","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gary-m-weibrecht-claimantappellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-o-109591","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36942:2021-12-21","opinionId":"209c799b-b9f4-5e1b-a3b2-b6ae9f13e161","slug":"randall-clinkenbeard-claimant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-department-of-d36942","caseName":"RANDALL CLINKENBEARD, Claimant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Employer-Respondent\nand\nTREASURER of MISSOURI as CUSTODIAN of SECOND INJURY FUND, Additional Party-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36942","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-12-21","year":2021,"display_summary":"Randall Clinkenbeard appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of permanent total disability (PTD) benefits from the Second Injury Fund (SIF). The Commission had reversed an Administrative Law Judge's award, applying section 287.220.3 to Clinkenbeard's claim. Clinkenbeard argued the Commission misapplied the statute, applied it retroactively, and erred by denying a remand for additional fact-finding. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that the Commission correctly interpreted and applied section 287.220.3, that the statute was not applied retroactively, and that the Commission did not abuse its discretion in denying the remand.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182873","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/randall-clinkenbeard-claimant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-department-of-d36942","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc98948:2021-12-21","opinionId":"e41c71db-4258-5d83-bafa-331c311e58d3","slug":"gary-boothe-jr-appellant-v-dish-network-inc-respondent-c98948","caseName":"Gary Boothe, Jr., Appellant, vs. DISH Network, Inc., Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC98948","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2021-12-21","year":2021,"display_summary":"Gary Boothe, Jr., a Field Service Specialist for DISH Network, Inc., appealed the denial of workers' compensation benefits after he choked on a breakfast sandwich while driving a company vehicle, blacked out, and crashed. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denied benefits, finding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that Boothe failed to establish the injury's risk source (eating while driving) was related to his employment and that he was not equally exposed to that risk in nonemployment life, as required by section 287.020.3(2)(b).","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182825","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gary-boothe-jr-appellant-v-dish-network-inc-respondent-c98948","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82700:2021-11-23","opinionId":"6bb4fc51-8a90-584f-b8b7-2378c6c7ff50","slug":"heather-m-bass-v-police-retirement-system-of-kansas-city-missouri-d82700","caseName":"Heather M. Bass\nvs. \nPolice Retirement System of Kansas City, Missouri","caseNumber":"WD82700","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-11-23","year":2021,"display_summary":"Heather Bass, a former police officer, and the Police Retirement System of Kansas City (PRSKC) cross-appealed a circuit court's summary judgment regarding the calculation of an offset to Bass's duty-related disability pension benefits due to her worker's compensation award. Bass challenged the inclusion of investment income in the offset, the denial of her motion to amend her petition, the mortality assumptions used for life expectancy, and the denial of prejudgment interest. PRSKC challenged the exclusion of attorney's fees and costs from the offset calculation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in its entirety.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182134","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/heather-m-bass-v-police-retirement-system-of-kansas-city-missouri-d82700","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37036:2021-11-23","opinionId":"a4e20435-2c07-5c61-9463-af38527bc465","slug":"james-d-chambers-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-the-se-d37036","caseName":"JAMES D. CHAMBERS, Appellant\nvs.\nTREASURER OF MISSOURI AS CUSTODIAN OF THE SECOND INJURY FUND, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37036","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-11-23","year":2021,"display_summary":"James Chambers sought permanent total disability benefits from the Second Injury Fund after a 2015 work accident, claiming he was unemployable. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission found him employable and not permanently and totally disabled, denying benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that Chambers failed to meet his burden of proof and that abundant evidence supported the finding that he was able to compete in the open labor market.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182244","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-d-chambers-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-the-se-d37036","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc97542:2021-11-09","opinionId":"16e89dc2-7a03-51c5-b84a-bcd1c4c7e222","slug":"danny-brock-respondent-v-peter-dunne-in-his-capacity-as-defendant-ad-lite-c97542","caseName":"Danny Brock, Respondent, vs. Peter Dunne, in his Capacity as Defendant Ad Litem for Mark Edwards, Deceased, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC97542","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2021-11-09","year":2021,"display_summary":"Danny Brock sued his supervisor, Mark Edwards, for negligence after Brock's thumb was crushed while cleaning a laminating machine at work. The trial court overruled Edwards' motions for directed verdict and JNOV, and a jury awarded Brock $1.05 million. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that Edwards was immune from liability under section 287.120.1 because Brock failed to show Edwards acted with the conscious object to increase the risk of injury. The Court further held that Edwards could not be held liable under common law negligence as his actions fell within the employer's nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","negligence","civil-procedure","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=181913","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/danny-brock-respondent-v-peter-dunne-in-his-capacity-as-defendant-ad-lite-c97542","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109447:2021-11-02","opinionId":"c1acd2ef-d12f-539d-bc34-5dc2d453e22d","slug":"patricia-parrish-otwell-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-on-109447","caseName":"Patricia (Parrish) Otwell, Appellant, vs. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian on the Second Injury Fund, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109447","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-11-02","year":2021,"display_summary":"Patricia Otwell appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision awarding her permanent partial disability against the Second Injury Fund, arguing the Commission erred in excluding her vocational expert's testimony. The Commission had excluded the testimony, finding the expert improperly relied on an inadmissible report from a non-testifying physician. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Commission abused its discretion by excluding the entirety of the expert's testimony, as the expert's reliance on the inadmissible report was minimal and he conducted his own independent evaluation and reviewed numerous other medical records. The case was remanded for reconsideration of the award.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=181735","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/patricia-parrish-otwell-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-on-109447","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109554:2021-10-26","opinionId":"ca8c0acc-bca4-502a-bec0-fee5f77022d2","slug":"alan-marberry-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-the-secon-109554","caseName":"Alan Marberry, Appellant, v. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109554","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-10-26","year":2021,"display_summary":"Alan Marberry appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of his claim for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits from the Second Injury Fund. The Commission erred by excluding Marberry's right shoulder injury and low back injury from consideration for Fund liability. The appellate court reversed the Commission's decision, holding that both injuries should have been considered under Section 287.220.3, and remanded with instructions to enter an award of PTD benefits for Marberry.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=181556","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/alan-marberry-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-the-secon-109554","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109502:2021-10-19","opinionId":"e7353996-bdc0-5a5d-be85-69fabbcaafbe","slug":"mark-lynch-claimantappellant-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodi-109502","caseName":"Mark Lynch, Claimant/Appellant, vs. Treasurer of the State of Missouri, Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109502","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-10-19","year":2021,"display_summary":"Mark Lynch appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of his claim against the Second Injury Fund for permanent total disability benefits. The Commission found Lynch's permanent total disability was due to preexisting conditions, not a combination with his work-related carpal tunnel syndrome, and relied on evidence not properly in the record while disregarding uncontradicted expert medical opinion. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the Commission arbitrarily ignored competent and substantial evidence, including the only qualified expert medical opinion, and improperly substituted its own theory of medical causation.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","appellate-procedure","evidence","administrative-law","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=181340","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-lynch-claimantappellant-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodi-109502","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36883:2021-10-05","opinionId":"07cf3819-9889-5546-b41a-2df792b4b221","slug":"laura-williams-respondent-and-jennifer-williams-next-friend-of-courtny-wi-d36883","caseName":"LAURA WILLIAMS, Respondent \nand JENNIFER WILLIAMS, next friend of COURTNY WILLIAMS and KENNEDY WILLIAMS, Appellants/Respondents\nvs.\nREEDS, LLC, Respondent/Cross-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD36883","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-10-05","year":2021,"display_summary":"Jacob Williams died while working, and his widow and daughters were awarded workers' compensation benefits. The employer/insurer appealed the compensation rate and the admission of expert testimony, while the daughters cross-appealed the Commission's finding that one daughter was no longer a total dependent. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's award, holding that the Commission did not abuse its discretion regarding the expert testimony or the average weekly wage calculation, and that the employer had standing to challenge the dependency status.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=181074","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/laura-williams-respondent-and-jennifer-williams-next-friend-of-courtny-wi-d36883","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":24,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84420:2021-09-28","opinionId":"aa87ef5f-5e61-5540-8eb5-e92804e0a44c","slug":"william-wilson-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-the-seco-d84420","caseName":"William Wilson\nvs.\nTreasurer of the State of Missouri - Custodian of the Second Injury Fund","caseNumber":"WD84420","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-09-28","year":2021,"display_summary":"William Wilson appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of his workers' compensation claim for permanent total disability benefits from the Second Injury Fund. The Commission had concluded that the Second Injury Fund was not liable because Wilson failed to prove his disability resulted solely from one qualifying preexisting disability combined with the primary injury. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Commission erroneously interpreted and applied section 287.220.3(2) by limiting consideration to a single preexisting disability, contrary to the Missouri Supreme Court's ruling in *Treasurer as Custodian of Second Injury Fund v. Parker*. The case was remanded with instructions to enter an award for Wilson.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=180837","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/william-wilson-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-the-seco-d84420","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36826:2021-09-17","opinionId":"31625e6a-c7fa-5b76-b9a4-444f372e9434","slug":"arthur-anttila-appellant-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-o-d36826","caseName":"ARTHUR ANTTILA, Appellant\nvs.\nTREASURER OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, CUSTODIAN OF SECOND INJURY FUND, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36826","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-09-17","year":2021,"display_summary":"Arthur Anttila appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of his worker's compensation claim against the Second Injury Fund. Anttila sought benefits for permanent total disability, alleging a combination of a traumatic accident, occupational exposure, and pre-existing conditions. The Commission reversed the Administrative Law Judge's finding of Fund liability, concluding Anttila failed to demonstrate a qualifying pre-existing condition. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, finding no reversible error in the Commission's handling of Anttila's amended claim and concluding Anttila failed to meet his burden of persuasion on permanent total disability.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence","administrative-law"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=180587","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/arthur-anttila-appellant-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-o-d36826","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109432:2021-09-14","opinionId":"6042f45d-dd0b-5374-80be-6c9052241ea3","slug":"linda-miller-appellant-v-henniges-automotive-sealing-systems-north-americ-109432","caseName":"Linda Miller, Appellant, vs. Henniges Automotive Sealing Systems North America, Inc., Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED109432","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-09-14","year":2021,"display_summary":"Linda Miller appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision to dismiss her Application for Review (AFR) of an administrative law judge's workers' compensation awards. The Commission dismissed Miller's AFR, finding it failed to comply with the specificity requirements of 8 C.S.R. 20-3.030(3)(A). The appellate court reversed the Commission's decision, holding that Miller's attached sheets to her AFR provided sufficient detail regarding her challenge to the ALJ's findings. The case was remanded to the Commission to overrule the motion to dismiss and proceed with Miller's AFR.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=180419","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/linda-miller-appellant-v-henniges-automotive-sealing-systems-north-americ-109432","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84198:2021-09-07","opinionId":"26a0e712-a414-5d47-a848-d8c913c43dc3","slug":"travis-poke-v-independence-school-district-d84198","caseName":"Travis Poke\nvs. \nIndependence School District","caseNumber":"WD84198","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-09-07","year":2021,"display_summary":"Travis Poke sued the Independence School District for retaliatory discharge after he filed a workers' compensation claim, alleging his termination was pretextual. The trial court granted summary judgment for the School District, concluding it was protected by sovereign immunity. The appellate court reversed, holding that the statutory provisions for workers' compensation claims against employers, which include school districts, constitute an express waiver of sovereign immunity for retaliatory discharge claims, and that the sovereign immunity exception for state employees does not apply to school districts.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","governmental-immunity","employment-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=180260","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/travis-poke-v-independence-school-district-d84198","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84377:2021-08-31","opinionId":"95d69cab-7615-5f42-9c2f-7945fca70d93","slug":"robert-march-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-the-second-d84377","caseName":"Robert March\nvs. \nTreasurer of the State of Missouri - Custodian of the Second Injury Fund","caseNumber":"WD84377","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-08-31","year":2021,"display_summary":"Robert March, an employee, appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of permanent total disability benefits from the Second Injury Fund. The Commission had found the employee's expert medical testimony on causation credible but then substituted its own lay opinion to deny compensation. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the Commission cannot substitute its lay opinion for uncontradicted, credible expert medical testimony on causation.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","evidence","appellate-procedure","administrative-law"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=179997","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-march-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-the-second-d84377","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":24,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36956:2021-07-22","opinionId":"6c47fedc-3f47-5069-a877-188d50d23536","slug":"tommy-patrick-respondent-v-derek-mulvaney-dba-mulvaney-construction-llc-j-d36956","caseName":"TOMMY PATRICK, Respondent\nvs.\nDEREK MULVANEY d/b/a MULVANEY CONSTRUCTION, LLC, JERRY DIERKER CONSTRUCTION, Respondents\nand CITY OF MONETT, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD36956","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-07-22","year":2021,"display_summary":"Tommy Patrick was injured while working for a subcontractor on the City of Monett's City Hall renovation project. Patrick filed a workers' compensation claim, and the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission found the City secondarily liable as a statutory employer. The City appealed, arguing the Commission erred in its finding. The Southern District affirmed the Commission's award, concluding the City's points on appeal lacked merit due to analytical defects in its briefing, and further observing that the Commission's award was supported by sufficient evidence.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=178993","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tommy-patrick-respondent-v-derek-mulvaney-dba-mulvaney-construction-llc-j-d36956","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109142:2021-07-20","opinionId":"16735a8f-0c7f-5587-a9fa-ee2b5024135c","slug":"michael-taylor-appellant-v-the-board-of-trustees-of-the-firefighters-reti-109142","caseName":"Michael Taylor, Appellant, vs. The Board of Trustees of the Firefighters' Retirement Plan of St. Louis, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109142","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-07-20","year":2021,"display_summary":"Michael Taylor, a firefighter, appealed the circuit court's judgment affirming the Board of Trustees of the Firefighters' Retirement Plan of St. Louis's decision to deny his claim for disability benefits. Taylor argued the Board erred by finding mental disabilities non-compensable, that its decision lacked substantial evidence, and that its findings of malingering were against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the Board's decision was supported by competent and substantial evidence and that Taylor's arguments regarding the compensability of mental disabilities were based on an erroneous premise.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","workers-compensation","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=178836","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-taylor-appellant-v-the-board-of-trustees-of-the-firefighters-reti-109142","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:parent-178840","opinionId":"1ebcec70-61f7-5717-b637-8695e9e3156a","slug":"jimmy-fields-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-the-second-109251","caseName":"Jimmy Fields, Appellant, vs. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109251","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-07-20","year":2021,"display_summary":"Claimant Jimmy Fields appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of workers' compensation benefits from the Second Injury Fund for permanent total disability (PTD) due to hearing loss and permanent partial disability (PPD) for several back injuries. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's denial of PPD benefits for the back injuries and the alternative PTD claim for the last back injury, finding them supported by sufficient evidence. However, the court reversed the Commission's denial of PTD benefits for hearing loss, concluding it was not supported by sufficient competent evidence, and remanded the case for an award of PTD consistent with the opinion.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=178840","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jimmy-fields-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-the-second-109251","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36998:2021-06-25","opinionId":"f24f07d9-cd28-5d72-8929-359950b28038","slug":"gregory-phelps-appellant-v-missouri-state-treasurer-as-custodian-of-the-s-d36998","caseName":"GREGORY PHELPS, Appellant\nvs.\nMISSOURI STATE TREASURER AS CUSTODIAN OF THE SECOND INJURY FUND, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36998","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-06-25","year":2021,"display_summary":"Gregory Phelps appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of his workers' compensation claim for permanent total disability benefits from the Second Injury Fund. Phelps argued the Commission misinterpreted and misapplied section 287.220.3 regarding qualifying preexisting disabilities. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's award, finding no error in its interpretation of the statutory requirements for a compensable preexisting injury or the definition of \"the opposite extremity.\" The court also found Phelps's third point regarding the combination of injuries to be moot.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=178244","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gregory-phelps-appellant-v-missouri-state-treasurer-as-custodian-of-the-s-d36998","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109136:2021-06-08","opinionId":"44637f83-3015-5672-bc07-5ea7d2d74791","slug":"brenda-linkous-appellant-v-kirkwood-school-district-respondent-109136","caseName":"Brenda Linkous, Appellant, v. Kirkwood School District, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109136","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-06-08","year":2021,"display_summary":"Brenda Linkous sued Kirkwood School District (KSD) for negligence after she was injured in its parking lot. KSD moved for summary judgment, arguing Linkous was its statutory employee under Section 287.040 RSMo, making workers' compensation her exclusive remedy. The trial court granted summary judgment for KSD. The appellate court affirmed, holding that KSD established all elements of statutory employment, including that Linkous's work was performed under contract and was part of KSD's usual business, despite Linkous's arguments regarding preemption and specialization.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=177821","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/brenda-linkous-appellant-v-kirkwood-school-district-respondent-109136","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36898:2021-05-27","opinionId":"c4e5fb14-23bb-52f1-806b-ab0da21b3362","slug":"roy-dale-franklin-claimant-respondent-v-mitchell-mill-systems-usa-inc-emp-d36898","caseName":"ROY DALE FRANKLIN, Claimant-Respondent\nvs.\nMITCHELL MILL SYSTEMS USA, INC., Employer-Appellant\nACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Insurer-Appellant\nand\nTREASURER OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI AS CUSTODIAN OF THE SECOND INJURY FUND, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36898","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-05-27","year":2021,"display_summary":"Roy Dale Franklin (Employee) filed a workers' compensation claim for permanent total disability. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission found that his disability resulted solely from his last workplace injury, not a combination of that injury and pre-existing disabilities, thus denying an award from the Second Injury Fund. The Employer and Insurer appealed, arguing the Commission's finding was not supported by facts or sufficient competent evidence. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, finding that the expert and Employee testimony supported the conclusion that the last injury alone caused the permanent total disability.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=177679","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/roy-dale-franklin-claimant-respondent-v-mitchell-mill-systems-usa-inc-emp-d36898","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84123:2021-05-25","opinionId":"9cb7531e-36e1-5b88-b97f-18136a01bc70","slug":"karen-ritchie-v-silgan-containers-manufacturing-corp-and-travelers-casual-d84123","caseName":"Karen Ritchie\nvs.\nSilgan Containers Manufacturing Corp. and Travelers Casualty Ins. of America","caseNumber":"WD84123","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-05-25","year":2021,"display_summary":"Karen Ritchie filed a workers' compensation claim against her employer, Silgan Containers Manufacturing Corp., and its insurer, alleging a compensable work-related occupational disease, permanent total disability, and seeking medical expenses and disfigurement damages. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission found in Ritchie's favor, awarding her benefits. On appeal, the employer and insurer challenged the Commission's findings regarding the occupational disease, timely notice, permanent total disability, and entitlement to medical treatment. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's award in its entirety.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=177581","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/karen-ritchie-v-silgan-containers-manufacturing-corp-and-travelers-casual-d84123","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":20,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108853:2021-05-11","opinionId":"8d327ada-89b6-5957-8bfd-fd6230a96a5b","slug":"michael-a-lexow-appellant-v-boeing-co-employer-and-treasurer-of-missouri-108853","caseName":"Michael A. Lexow, Appellant, v. Boeing Co., Employer, and Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED108853","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-05-11","year":2021,"display_summary":"Michael A. Lexow appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying him permanent total disability benefits from the Second Injury Fund. The Commission had reversed an ALJ's award, interpreting Section 287.220.3 to require a single qualifying preexisting disability and to exclude occupational diseases from \"compensable injuries.\" The appellate court reversed the Commission's decision, holding that the statute allows for consideration of all qualifying preexisting disabilities and that occupational diseases are compensable injuries under the statute. The case was remanded for the Commission to make factual findings consistent with this interpretation.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","other","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=177196","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-a-lexow-appellant-v-boeing-co-employer-and-treasurer-of-missouri-108853","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36658:2021-04-20","opinionId":"53f067ba-dc76-57c5-a7a2-9e274126ec44","slug":"andrew-halsey-and-tammy-kennedy-appellants-v-townsend-tree-service-compan-d36658","caseName":"ANDREW HALSEY and TAMMY KENNEDY, Appellants\nvs.\nTOWNSEND TREE SERVICE COMPANY, LLC., Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36658","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-04-20","year":2021,"display_summary":"Andrew Halsey and Tammy Kennedy appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's award, which found their son's death was a compensable injury by accident under workers' compensation law. The parents argued the Commission erred in finding an \"accident\" and in its application of the \"idiopathic causes\" exception, specifically regarding the burden of proof and the causal link of obesity. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's award, finding sufficient evidence for the \"accident\" and concluding that while the Commission erred on the burden of proof for idiopathic causes, the parents failed to meet their burden of production to show \"but for\" causation for obesity.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=176953","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/andrew-halsey-and-tammy-kennedy-appellants-v-townsend-tree-service-compan-d36658","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc98704:2021-04-20","opinionId":"f17ad0af-c87e-5b46-b7c3-097a6064fac4","slug":"treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-the-second-injury-fund-c98704","caseName":"Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Appellant, vs. Jonathan Parker, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC98704","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2021-04-20","year":2021,"display_summary":"The Second Injury Fund appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's award of permanent total disability benefits to Jonathan Parker. The Missouri Supreme Court found that the Commission erred by applying the incorrect subsection of section 287.220, as Parker's injuries occurred after January 1, 2014, requiring application of subsection 3. The Court provided statutory interpretations for the Commission to apply on remand and addressed an evidentiary issue regarding the admissibility of medical records. The Court vacated the Commission's award and remanded the case for a determination under the correct statutory provisions.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","civil-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=176936","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-the-second-injury-fund-c98704","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83430:2021-04-13","opinionId":"45e57bdf-8033-54a0-8729-ce812ba71678","slug":"nancy-j-ducoulombier-v-ford-motor-company-d83430","caseName":"Nancy J. Ducoulombier\nvs.\nFord Motor Company","caseNumber":"WD83430","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-04-13","year":2021,"display_summary":"Nancy J. Ducoulombier sued Ford Motor Company for negligence and wrongful death, alleging Ford failed to provide proper medical attention to her husband after he became incapacitated at work, leading to his death. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Ford, concluding that the Division of Workers' Compensation had exclusive statutory authority over the claim. The appellate court affirmed, holding that because the claims involved an employer/employee relationship, the Commission had the exclusive authority to determine if the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, thus precluding a civil action.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=176698","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/nancy-j-ducoulombier-v-ford-motor-company-d83430","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc98251:2021-04-06","opinionId":"088c926a-b00d-5251-8066-e0e33551d7c5","slug":"state-ex-rel-beutler-inc-dba-george-j-shaw-construction-co-and-brian-hend-c98251","caseName":"State ex rel. Beutler, Inc. d/b/a George J. Shaw Construction Co. and Brian Henderson, Relators, vs. The Honorable Sandra C. Midkiff, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC98251","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2021-04-06","year":2021,"display_summary":"Joshua McArthur, an employee of R&B Trucking, sued Brian Henderson and Beutler, Inc. d/b/a George J. Shaw Construction Co. for negligence after sustaining injuries on a construction site. The circuit court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, which asserted immunity under the workers' compensation exclusivity doctrine. The Missouri Supreme Court issued a permanent writ of prohibition, holding that Shaw was McArthur's statutory employer and Henderson his statutory co-employee, thus granting them immunity from suit. The Court also rejected McArthur's argument that the statutory employment defense violated his constitutional right to a trial by jury.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=176493","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-beutler-inc-dba-george-j-shaw-construction-co-and-brian-hend-c98251","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109168:2021-04-06","opinionId":"e50a5bee-41fd-5c05-ac38-3c621bc60e3f","slug":"john-d-matthews-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-the-sec-109168","caseName":"John D. Matthews, Appellant, v. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109168","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-04-06","year":2021,"display_summary":"Lisa Matthews appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's dismissal of her motion to be substituted as a party in her late husband's workers' compensation case. She sought to receive his permanent total disability benefits from the Second Injury Fund as a surviving dependent. The Commission dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the final award did not establish her dependency at the time of the injury. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the final award's mere mention of marriage was insufficient to establish dependency as a matter of law, thus depriving the Commission of authority to grant relief.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=176316","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-d-matthews-appellant-v-treasurer-of-missouri-as-custodian-of-the-sec-109168","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84136:2021-03-30","opinionId":"1df7ac55-f8e7-505d-b0f6-3e7fdccbc1aa","slug":"jonathan-mirfasihi-v-honeywell-federal-manufacturing-technologies-llc-d84136","caseName":"Jonathan Mirfasihi\nvs. \nHoneywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, LLC","caseNumber":"WD84136","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-03-30","year":2021,"display_summary":"Jonathan Mirfasihi appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of his workers' compensation claim for a thumb injury, which he asserted was an occupational disease caused by his work duties at Honeywell. The Commission reversed an administrative law judge's award, finding Mirfasihi failed to demonstrate that his work duties were the prevailing factor causing his injury, particularly due to a lack of expert medical opinion linking specific activities to his condition. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's final award, concluding that the Commission did not err in its findings regarding the absence of expert medical evidence for causation or in its evaluation of conflicting medical opinions.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","evidence","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=175870","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jonathan-mirfasihi-v-honeywell-federal-manufacturing-technologies-llc-d84136","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109082:2021-03-23","opinionId":"c16d0cab-3ae9-5bb2-82bc-aa5d975ccf11","slug":"melinda-s-wille-appellant-v-the-curators-of-the-university-of-missouri-re-109082","caseName":"Melinda S. Wille, Appellant, v. The Curators of the University of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109082","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-03-23","year":2021,"display_summary":"Melinda S. Wille sued the Curators of the University of Missouri, alleging retaliatory discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim. The trial court dismissed her damages claim based on sovereign immunity and later entered judgment for the Curators on her amended petition for injunctive relief after a bench trial. The appellate court affirmed, holding that sovereign immunity bars monetary damages claims against the Curators for workers' compensation retaliation. The court also found the trial court's denial of equitable relief was not against the weight of the evidence, as the termination decision was made before her injury.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","governmental-immunity","employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=175634","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/melinda-s-wille-appellant-v-the-curators-of-the-university-of-missouri-re-109082","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]}]}