Jerry Barnette v. Sachs Electric Company

(Affirming Award and Decision of Administrative Law Judge)

Injury No.: 01-064994

Employee: Jerry W. Barnette

Employer: Sachs Electric Company

Insurer: St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company

Date of Accident: June 26, 2001

Place and County of Accident: 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 October 19, 2005. The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge John Howard Percy, issued October 19, 2005, is attached and incorporated by this reference.

The Commission further approves and affirms the administrative law judge's allowance of attorney's fee herein as being fair and reasonable.

Any past due compensation shall bear interest as provided by law.

Given at Jefferson City, State of Missouri, this $\qquad 19 [$ day of April 2006.

LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

William F. Ringer, Chairman

Alice A. Bartlett, Member

John J. Hickey, Member

Attest:

Secretary

2.compensation has been paid in the amount of $\ 40,197.32 representing 67 weeks of benefits covering the period from June 27, 2001 to October 8, 2002; and

3.employer/insurer have paid $\ 69,917.11 in medical expenses.

The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are:

1.whether the current pathology in claimant knees developed as a result of the work-related injury to claimant's right ankle;

2.if the employee sustained a compensable injuries to his knees, whether employee is entitled pursuant to Section 287.140 Mo. Rev. Stat. (2000) to be reimbursed for medical bills for treatment of his knees;

3.whether the employee should be provided with any future medical treatment;

4.whether employee is entitled pursuant to Section 287.170 Mo. Rev. Stat. (2000) to any additional temporary total disability compensation subsequent to October 7, 2002; and

5.the nature and extent of any permanent disability sustained by the employee as a result of the work-related injury or injuries of June 26, 2001.

Employee claims that he developed arthritis and meniscal tears in his knees as a result of an altered gait during his long convalescence from a severe right ankle fracture. While employer/insurer concede that claimant sustained a severe fracture to his right ankle on June 26, 2001, they contend that the pathology in claimant's knees is due to his morbid obesity and natural deterioration from aging.

The employee must establish a causal connection between the accident and the claimed injuries. Davies v. Carter Carburetor Div., 429 S.W.2d 738 (Mo. 1968); McGrath v. Satellite Sprinkler Systems, 877 S.W.2d 704, 708 (Mo. App. 1994); Blankenship v. Columbia Sportswear, 875 S.W.2d 937, 942 (Mo. App. 1994); Fisher v. Archdiocese of St. Louis, 793 S.W.2d 195, 198 (Mo. App. 1990); Cox v. General Motors Corp., 691 S.W.2d 294 (Mo. App. 1985); Griggs v. A.B. Chance Company, 503 S.W.2d 697, 703 (Mo. App. 1974); Smith v. Terminal Transfer Company, 372 S.W.2d 659, 664 (Mo. App. 1963).

Amendments made to Section 287.020 .2 in 1993 require that the injury be "clearly work related" for it to be compensable. An injury is clearly work related "if work was a substantial factor in the cause of the resulting medical condition or disability. An injury is not compensable merely because work was a triggering or precipitating factor." The Supreme Court held in Kasl v. Bristol Care, Inc., 984 S.W.2d 852 (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. Injuries which are triggered or precipitated by work may nevertheless be compensable if the work is found to be a "substantial factor" in causing the injury. Kasl, supra at 853. 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). An accident may be both a triggering event and a substantial factor in causing an injury. Id. Subsection 2 also provides that an injury must be incidental and not independent of 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." The extent to which the 1993 amendments have further modified prior caselaw will be determined by the appellate courts. See Cahall, supra at 372.

The quantum of proof is reasonable probability. Davies, supra at 749; Downing v. Willamette Industries, Inc., 895 S.W.2d 650, 655 (Mo. App. 1995); White v. Henderson Implement Co., 879 S.W.2d 575, 577 (Mo. App. 1994); Fischer at 199; Banner Iron Works v. Mordis, 664 S.W.2d 770, 773 (Mo. App. 1983);Griggs at 703. "Probable means founded on reason and experience which inclines the mind to believe but leaves room to doubt." Tate v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 715 S.W.2d 326, 329 (Mo. App. 1986); Fischer at 198.

Such proof is made only by competent and substantial evidence. It may not rest on speculation. Griggs v. A. B. Chance Company, 503 S.W.2d 697, 703 (Mo. App. 1974). Expert testimony may be required where there are complicated medical issues. Goleman v. MCI Transporters, 844 S.W.2d 463, 466 (Mo. App. 1993); Griggs at 704; Downs v. A.C.F. Industries, Incorporated, 460 S.W.2d 293, 295-96 (Mo. App. 1970). Expert testimony is required where the cause and effect relationship between the claimed injury or condition and the alleged cause is not within the realm of common knowledge. McGrath v. Satellite Sprinkler Systems, 877 S.W.2d 704, 708 (Mo. App. 1994); Brundige v. Boehringer Ingelheim, 812 S.W.2d 200, 202 (Mo. App. 1991). Expert testimony is essential where the issue is whether a preexisting condition was aggravated by a subsequent injury. Modlin v. Sun Mark, Inc., 699 S.W.2d 5 (Mo. App. 1985). The fact finder may accept

only part of the testimony of a medical expert and reject the remainder of it. Cole v. Best Motor Lines, 303 S.W.2d 170, 174 (Mo. App. 1957). Where the opinions of medical experts are in conflict, the fact finding body determines whose opinion is the most credible. Hawkins v. Emerson Electric Co., 676 S.W.2d 872, 877 (Mo. App. 1984). Where there are conflicting medical opinions, the fact finder may reject all or part of one party's expert testimony which it does not consider credible and accept as true the contrary testimony given by the other litigant's expert. Webber v. Chrysler Corp., 826 S.W.2d 51, 54 (Mo. App. 1992); Hutchinson v. Tri-State Motor Transit Co., 721 S.W.2d 158, 163 (Mo. App. 1986).