Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

Keith Madison v. Multiple entities (W. A. Thomas Real Estate Appraisal Company and related entities)

Decision date: May 4, 20069 pages

Summary

The Commission affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's award allowing workers' compensation benefits to Keith Madison for an injury that occurred on January 31, 2002, in St. Louis City while driving to purchase equipment and supplies. The injury was found to be compensable under Missouri's Workers' Compensation Act and arose out of and in the course of employment.

Archive Notice

This archive contains published Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission workers' compensation decisions reproduced for research convenience. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Legal Help

Practical guidance for this decision

Third-Party Injury Check

This workers' comp decision may point to a separate injury claim.

  • A driver, contractor, property owner, or equipment company may share fault.
  • The injury involved a vehicle, unsafe premises, defective equipment, or a non-employer vendor.
  • A serious injury or death may need both benefits review and civil-claim analysis.

Caption

FINAL AWARD ALLOWING COMPENSATION

(Affirming Award and Decision of Administrative Law Judge)

Injury No.: 02-011264

Employee: Keith Madison

Employer: See attached

Insurer: Unknown

Additional Party: Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund (Open)

Date of Accident: January 31, 2002

Place and County of Accident: St. Louis City

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 June 22, 2005. The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Jennifer L. Schwendemann, issued June 22, 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 $\qquad 4^{\text {th }} \qquad$ day of May 2006.

LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

William F. Ringer, Chairman

Alice A. Bartlett, Member

John J. Hickey, Member

Attest:

Secretary

Injury No.: 02-011264

Employee: Keith Madison

The following is a list of Employers alleged in the Claim for Compensation:
W. A. Thomas Real Estate Appraisal Company
Sharon Ivora Robnett
Robnett, Incorporated
Homer G. Phillips Dignity House LP
Dignity House Tenant Development LLC
Dignity House Landlord Development LLC
WAT Dignity Urban Redevelopment Corporation
Andrea T Gordon
W A T Dignity Corporation
Ivora Properties, Incorporated
Union Sarah NSA I LTD LP
Union Sarah Realty Investment Corporation
RMT Accounting Services. Incorporated
W A Thomas and Company, Incorporated
W A Thomas Realty Company, Incorporated
W A T Realty Company, Incorporated
Alice Thomas Bracken
Sandra Thomas Nobles
William Thomas
AWARD
Employee:Keith MadisonInjury No.: 02-011264
Dependents:N/ABefore the
Division of Workers’
Employer:See attachedCompensation
Additional Party:Second Injury Fund (Open)Department of Labor and Industrial
Relations of Missouri
Jefferson City, Missouri
Insurer:Unknown
Hearing Date:February 8, 2005Checked by: JLS:tr
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RULINGS OF LAW
1.Are any benefits awarded herein? Yes
2.Was the injury or occupational disease compensable under Chapter 287? Yes
3.Was there an accident or incident of occupational disease under the Law? Yes
4.Date of accident or onset of occupational disease: January 31, 2002
5.State location where accident occurred or occupational disease was contracted: St. Louis City
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? Yes
9.Was claim for compensation filed within time required by Law? Yes
10.Was employer insured by above insurer? N/A
  1. Describe work employee was doing and how accident occurred or occupational disease contracted: Driving to purchase equipment and supplies for job.
  2. Did accident or occupational disease cause death? No Date of death? N/A
  3. Part(s) of body injured by accident or occupational disease: Body as a whole
  4. Nature and extent of any permanent disability: 121 / 2 % body as a whole
  5. Compensation paid to-date for temporary disability: -0 -
  6. Value necessary medical aid paid to date by employer/insurer? -0 -

Employee: Keith Madison Injury No.: 02-011264

  1. Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer/insurer? \8,102.98
  2. Employee's average weekly wages: \ 480.00
  3. Weekly compensation rate: $\ 320.00
  4. Method wages computation: Two-thirds of average weekly wage

COMPENSATION PAYABLE

  1. Amount of compensation payable:

Unpaid medical expenses: $\ 8,102.98

Permanent partial disability from Employer $\ 16,000.00

  1. Second Injury Fund liability: Open

TOTAL:

$\ 24,102.98

  1. Future requirements awarded: N/A

Said payments to begin immediately 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 25 % of all payments hereunder in favor of the following attorney for necessary legal services rendered to the claimant:

Jeff Roth

FINDINGS OF FACT and RULINGS OF LAW:

Employee: Keith Madison

Injury No.: 02-011264

Dependents: N/A

Before the

Division of Workers'

Employer:See attachedCompensation Department of Labor and Industrial Relations of Missouri Jefferson City, Missouri
Additional Party:Second Injury Fund (Open)
Insurer:UnknownChecked by: JLS:tr
PRELIMINARIES
A hearing was held on February 8, 2005. The Claimant was represented by Attorney Jeff Roth. There was no appearance by or on behalf of any of the Employers alleged in the claim. The claim against the Second Injury Fund will remain open. Subsequent to the hearing, on June 2, 2005, a formal entry of appearance was received by the Court from Margaret Bush Wilson. Ms. Wilson entered her appearance on behalf of all “alleged” Employers listed in the claim except Union Sarah NSA 1 Ltd., LP and Union Sarah Realty Investment Corporation. (See Employer’s Exhibit 1). The Court takes note that Ms. Wilson had appeared at the Division at previous settings of this case, but had never entered her appearance until after the trial was held. The Court further notes that on the date of the hearing a phone call/voice mail was received by the Court from someone from Ms. Wilson’s office explaining that she had a fall and was unable to attend the hearing. No prior request for continuance was received. his matter was set for Hearing six times and or Prehearing three times before the actual trial date. No formal entry of appearance was received on behalf of any Employer until June 2, 2005. No answer to the claim was ever filed on behalf of the Employer. The Court recognizes this award is issued outside of he 90 days suggested by §287, however, at the request of Claimant’s counsel, and extension was given to allow him additional time to submit a proposed decision. Notice of the hearing dated February 8, 2005 was sent to all of the alleged Employers by certified mail pursuant to §287.450 and §287.520 Mo Rev. Stat. (2000);Westin Transport Inc.v. Sharp, 936 S.W.2d. 219, 221-22 (Mo.App. 1996).
The following exhibits were admitted into evidence:
Exhibit A.Medical Records, Medical Reports and Itemized Treatment Bills including those from St. Louis Connect Care, St. John’s Mercy Hospital and Mark Lichtenfeld, M.D.
Exhibit B.Missouri Division of Employment Security Quarterly Contribution and Wage Report of the 1st Quarter of 2002 ending on March 31, 2002.
Exhibit C.Holiday and Sick Day Policy.
Exhibit D.Union Sarah NSA Management Review.
Exhibit E.Union Sarah NSA Paycheck Stubs.
Exhibit F.Missouri Secretary Of State Corporation Status Forms as of February 7, 2005.
Exhibit G.W-2 Form of Union Sarah NSA 1 Ltd for 2001.
Exhibit H.Auto Accident Police Report – City of St. Louis Police Department.
The following issues were presented for resolution:
1.Whether Claimant and the alleged Employer (as an Employer is recovered by the Missouri Workers’ Compensation law) on January 31, 2002.
2.Accident
3.Notice
4.Arising out of and in the course of employment
5.Medical causation
6.Past medical expenses in the amount $8,102.98
7.Rate of compensation
8.Percentages of permanent partial disability
9.Whether or the not the Employer(s) are in default.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the credible and substantial evidence, I find the following:
1.The Court takes judicial notice of the Division of Workers’ Compensation file contents.
2.Claimant, a 41-year-old male, testified that on January 31, 2002, while working for one or more of the alleged Employers, was sent to Home Depot for supplies. He was involved in a car accident with his supervisor, David Bates. The car the men were traveling in was hit by a truck. The Claimant was wearing his seatbelt.

The men had received permission from the Employer's main office to purchase additional supplies needed for a government building inspection.

  1. The Claimant testified that he worked for Union Sarah NSA I Ltd. This company owned various apartment complexes. The main office for Union Sarah was housed at W.A. Thomas Realty on Kirkham Street in St. Louis County. Mr. Madison was hired by Sharon Robnett who along with her sister, Alice Bracken, ran the business. The Claimant testified that he had been working there for over six months. His title was Maintenance Supervisor and he believed his Employer to be W.A. Thomas.
  2. W.A. Thomas is the Employer listed on Claimant's W-2 form. (See Claimant's Exhibit G).
  3. Mr. Madison testified that he had visited the W.A. Thomas address on Kirkham before and he believed that many companies were operated from the one place of business. Many of these businesses are listed as alleged employers in the Claim for Compensation. He specifically took orders from Alice Bracken or Sharon Robnett. He was aware that another one of their sisters, Sandy Nobles, also helped in the business.
  4. At the time of the injury, the Claimant testified that besides Mr. Bates, a gentleman by the name of LaBert also worked at Union Sarah, along with different contractors and maintenance people. He mentioned Rhonda Westfall and a woman by the name of Laverne. These people were in addition to the employees working at the Kirkham address.
  5. The Claimant testified to the best of his knowledge his understanding of the Union Sarah relationship with W.A. Thomas. He believed W.A. Thomas reaped the benefits of rent from the Union Sarah apartment complex.
  6. The Claimant testified he was on call 24 hours a day and that he easily worked 50 hours a week, paid $\ 12.00 an hour, and was only paid for a 40 hour week or $\ 960.00 every two weeks. (See Claimant's Exhibit E).
  7. At the time of the injury, the Claimant felt no immediate pain and was able to return to work the same day. Then, however, he developed pain in his back. He told Sandra Nobles and the W.A. Thomas office the same day about the accident and the fact that his pain was hurting him. He denied having any prior back pain before this injury. A police report was filed and the Claimant was cited for failing to present an insurance card. (See Claimant's Exhibit H). When he inquired about insurance to see a doctor he was told by Ms. Nobles that none existed. The Claimant testified that he was in pain, without medical treatment being provided to him through his Employer, and without having private insurance he sought treatment at Connect Care.
  8. The records from Connect Care, which were admitted into evidence, shows that the patient arrived the same day of the

Full decision text continues in the plain-text archive copy.