Ajka Muminovic v. Koller Enterprises, Inc.

(Affirming Award and Decision of Administrative Law Judge)

Injury No.: 03-094258

Employee: Ajka Muminovic

Employer: Koller Enterprises, Inc.

Insurer: American Motorists Insurance Company

Date of Accident: Alleged September 22, 2003

Place and County of Accident: Alleged St. Louis County, Missouri

The above-entitled workers' compensation case is submitted to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) for review as provided by section 287.480 RSMo. Having reviewed the evidence and considered the whole record, the Commission finds that the award of the administrative law judge is supported by competent and substantial evidence and was made in accordance with the Missouri Workers' Compensation Act. Pursuant to section 286.090 RSMo, the Commission affirms the award and decision of the administrative law judge dated March 22, 2005, and awards no compensation in the above-captioned case.

The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge John Howard Percy, issued March 22, 2005, is attached and incorporated by this reference.

Given at Jefferson City, State of Missouri, this $19^{\text {th }}$ day of October 2005.

LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

William F. Ringer, Chairman

Alice A. Bartlett, Member

John J. Hickey, Member

Attest:

Secretary

1. Are any benefits awarded herein? No
2. Was the injury or occupational disease compensable under Chapter 287? No
3. Was there an accident or incident of occupational disease under the Law? No
4. Date of accident or onset of occupational disease: N/A
5. State location where accident occurred or occupational disease was contracted: N/A
6. Was above employee in employ of above employer at time of alleged accident or occupational disease? Yes
7. Did employer receive proper notice? Yes
8. Did accident or occupational disease arise out of and in the course of the employment? No
9. Was claim for compensation filed within time required by Law? Yes
10. Was employer insured by above insurer? Yes
11. Describe work employee was doing and how accident occurred or occupational disease contracted: N/A
12. Did accident or occupational disease cause death? No Date of death? N/A
13. $\operatorname{Part}(\mathrm{s})$ of body injured by accident or occupational disease: N/A
14. Nature and extent of any permanent disability: N/A
15. Compensation paid to-date for temporary disability: N/A
16. Value necessary medical aid paid to date by employer/insurer? $\ 6,752.52

Employee: Ajka Muminovic Injury No.: 03-094258 17. Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer/insurer? None 18. Employee's average weekly wages: $\ 501.93 19. Weekly compensation rate: $\ 334.62 TTD/\$334.62 PPD 20. Method wages computation: Stipulation

1. Amount of compensation payable: None
2. Second Injury Fund liability: No

1. Future requirements awarded: None

Said payments to begin N/A and to be payable and be subject to modification and review as provided by law.

The compensation awarded to the claimant shall be subject to a lien in the amount of N/A of all payments hereunder in favor of the following attorney for necessary legal services rendered to the claimant:

$\mathrm{N} / \mathrm{A}$

A hearing in this proceeding was held on December 8 and 21, 2004. Both parties submitted proposed awards, the latter of which was received on January 18, 2005.

The parties stipulated that on or about September 22, 2003:

1. the employer and employee were operating under and subject to the provisions of the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law;
2. the employer's liability was insured by American Motorists Insurance Company;
3. the employee's average weekly wage was $\ 501.93; and
4. the rate of compensation for temporary total disability was $\ 334.62 and the rate of compensation for permanent partial disability was $\ 334.62.

The parties further stipulated that:

1.the employer had notice of the alleged repetitive trauma injury/occupational disease and a claim for compensation was filed within the time prescribed by law;

1. no compensation has been paid; and
2. employer/insurer have paid medical expenses in the amount of $\ 6,752.52.

The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are:

1.whether claimant was exposed to an occupational disease due to repetitive trauma which arose out of and in the course of claimant's employment with Koller Enterprises, Inc.;

2.if the employee was exposed to an occupational disease by her work-related activities, whether she sustained an injury as a result of the occupational disease exposure;

3.whether employee is entitled pursuant to Section 287.140 Mo. Rev. Stat. (2000) to be reimbursed for any medical expenses, which she may have incurred in obtaining treatment for the injury;

4.if the employee sustained a compensable injury, whether she should be provided with any medical treatment for the injury; and

5.if the employee sustained a compensable injury, whether she is entitled pursuant to Section 287.170 Mo. Rev. Stat. (2000) to compensation for temporary total disability for any periods of time subsequent to September 22, 2003.

Ajka Muminovic, employee herein, claims that she developed cervical disk herniations as a result of the repetitive movements and positioning of her neck during the course of her employment with Koller Enterprises, Inc. Employer/insurer contend that employee's cervical disk pathology is due to ordinary, gradual deterioration or progressive degeneration of the body caused by aging and is not related to her employment. They contend that claimant's cervical disk pathology developed as a result of the natural progression of preexisting degenerative disk disease.

An employee's claim for compensation due to an occupational disease is to be determined under Section 287.067 Mo. Rev. Stat. (2000). It defines occupational disease as:

an identifiable disease arising with or without human fault out of and in the course of the employment. Ordinary diseases of life to which the general public is exposed outside of the employment shall not be compensable, except where the diseases follow as an incident of an occupational disease as defined in this section. The disease need not to have been foreseen or expected but after its contraction it must appear to have had its origin in a risk connected with the employment and to have flowed from that source as a rational consequence. (1993 additions underlined)

Section 287.067.2, which was added in 1993, provides that an occupational disease is compensable "if it is clearly work related and meets the requirements of an injury which is compensable as provided in subsections 2 and 3 of section 287.020. An occupational disease is not compensable merely because work was a triggering or precipitating factor." Subsection 2 of section 287.020 provides that an injury is clearly work related "if work was a substantial factor in the cause of the resulting medical condition or disability." 111

Subsection 3(1) of section 287.020 provides that an injury must arise out of and in the course of the employment and be incidental to and not independent of the employment relationship and that "ordinary, gradual deterioration or progressive degeneration of the body caused by aging" is not compensable unless it "follows as an incident of employment."

Subsection 3(2) of section 287.020 provides that an injury arises out of and in the course of the employment "only if (a) It is reasonably apparent, upon consideration of all the circumstances, that the employment is a substantial factor in causing the injury; and (b) It can be seen to have followed as a natural incident of the work; and (c) It can be fairly traced to the employment as a proximate cause; and (d) It does not come from a hazard or risk unrelated to the employment to which workers would have been equally exposed outside of and unrelated to the employment in normal nonemployment life[.]"

Much of new subsection 3(2) of section 287.020 was contained in the prior definition of an occupational disease set forth in Section 287.067. Section 287.020.3(2)(b), (c), and (d) were part of the former occupational disease statute. Section 287.020.3(2)(a) is a revision of the prior requirement of a direct causal connection between the conditions under which the work was performed and the occupational disease. Direct causal connection is now defined as "a substantial factor in causing

the injury." The Supreme Court held in Kasl v. Bristol Care, Inc., 984 S.W.2d 501 (Mo. 1999) that the foregoing language overruled the holdings in Wynn v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., 654 S.W.2d 87 (Mo. 1983), Bone v. Daniel Hamm Drayage Company, 449 S.W.2d 169 (Mo. 1970), and many other cases which had allowed an injury to be compensable so long as it was "triggered or precipitated" by work. A substantial factor does not have to be the primary or most significant causative factor. Bloss v. Plastic Enterprises, 32 S.W.3d 666, 671 (Mo. App. 2000); Cahall v. Cahall, 963 S.W.2d 368, 372 (Mo. App. 1998). The additional language in section 287.020.3(1) concerning deterioration or degeneration of the body due to aging probably does not overturn any prior court decisions.

Since the 1993 amendments pertaining to occupational diseases have largely readopted the prior statute, caselaw interpreting the prior statute is of some significance. In repetitive motion cases, ${ }_{\{ }^{[2]}$ as practically all movements of the human body done during the course of employment are also replicated in nonworking environments and as most occupationally induced diseases also sometimes occur in the public at large, the courts have focused on a particular risk or hazard to which an employee's exposure is greater or different than the public at large. Collins v. Neevel Luggage Manufacturing Co., 481 S.W.2d 548, 552-54 (Mo. App. 1972); Prater v. Thorngate, Ltd., 761 S.W.2d 226, 230 (Mo. App. 1988); Hayes v. Hudson Foods, Inc., 818 S.W.2d 296, 299-300 (Mo. App. 1991). Claimant must present substantial and competent evidence that he or she has contracted an occupationally induced disease rather than an ordinary disease of life. The Courts have stated that the determinative inquiry involves two considerations: "(1) whether there was an exposure to the disease which was greater than or different from that which affects the public generally, and (2) whether there was a recognizable link between the disease and some distinctive feature of the employee's job which is common to all jobs of that sort". Id. at 300; Dawson v. Associated Elec., 885 S.W.2d 712, 716 (Mo. App. 1994); Prater at 230; Jackson v. Risby Pallet and Lumber Co., 736 S.W.2d 575, 578 (Mo. App. 1987); Polavarapu v. General Motors Corp., 897 S.W.2d 63, 65 (Mo. App. 1995); Sellers v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 752 S.W.2d 413, 415 (Mo. App. 1988).

Claimant must also establish, generally through expert testimony, the probability that the claimed occupational disease was caused by conditions in the work place. Dawson at 716; Selby v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 831 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Mo. App. 1992); Brundige v. Boehringer, 812 S.W.2d 200, 202 (Mo. App. 1991). Claimant must prove that work was "a subst