Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

John Dedear v. Proffer Transportation, Inc. d/b/a Proffer Produce Company

Decision date: August 30, 200614 pages

Summary

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the administrative law judge's award of permanent partial disability compensation for employee John Dedear, rejecting his argument that the lump sum award should be prorated over his life expectancy under § 287.250.9 RSMo. The court held that proration only applies to compromise settlements approved by agreement of the parties, not to contested hearing awards.

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

Issued by THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
FINAL AWARD ALLOWING COMPENSATION(Affirming Award and Decision of Administrative Law Judge)
Injury No.: 99-146294
Employee:John Dedear
Employer:Proffer Transportation, Inc. d/b/a Proffer Produce Company
Insurer:Missouri Employers Mutual Insurance
Additional Party:Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund (Dismissed)
Date of Accident:October 21, 1999
Place and County of Accident:California
The above-entitled workers' compensation case is submitted to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) for review as provided by § 287.480 RSMo. Pursuant to § 286.090 RSMo, the Commission affirms the award and decision of the administrative law judge dated May 16, 2006.Employee raises one point in his Application for Review, which point does not challenge the administrative law judge’s findings of fact or conclusions of law. As a result, we may determine this matter without reviewing the record developed at hearing.Specifically, employee alleges, in part:The Final Award is erroneous in that the Administrative Law Judge failed to prorate the lump sum of $30,502.80 over the employee’s life expectancy pursuant to § 287.250.9 RSMo. Claimant did not request such a proration at trial as he was seeking permanent total disability.Section 287.250.9 RSMo, reads:The parties, by agreement and with approval of an administrative law judge, legal advisor or the commission, may enter into a compromise lump sum settlement in either permanent total or permanent partial disability cases which prorates the lump sum settlement over the life expectancy of the injured worker. When such an agreement has been approved, neither the weekly compensation rate paid throughout the case nor the maximum statutory weekly rate applicable to the injury shall apply. No compensation rate shall exceed the maximum statutory weekly rate as of the date of the injury. Instead, the prorated rate set forth in the approved settlement documents shall control and become the rate for that case. This section shall be retroactive in effect.(Emphasis added).
By its terms, § 287.250.9 authorizes proration only of claims resolved by an agreement of the parties in the form of a compromise lump sum settlement approved by an administrative law judge or this Commission. Section 287.250.9 is inapplicable to this case. The administrative law judge heard the above-referenced claim in a contested hearing and issued an award of compensation. A cardinal principle of all administrative law cases is that an administrative tribunal is a creature of statute and exercises only that authority invested by legislative enactment. Farmer v. Barlow Truck Lines, 979 S.W.2d 169, 170 (Mo. banc 1998). The administrative law judge did not err by failing to prorate the award of permanent partial disability in this matter.
The Commission approves and affirms the administrative law judge’s allowance of attorney’s fee herein as being

fair and reasonable.

The award and decision of Chief Administrative Law Judge Jack H. Knowlan, Jr., issued May 16, 2006, is attached and incorporated by this reference.

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

Given at Jefferson City, State of Missouri, this $\qquad 30^{\text {th }} \qquad day of August 2006.

LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

\qquad NOT SITTING \qquad$

William F. Ringer, Chairman

Alice A. Bartlett, Member

John J. Hickey, Member

Attest:

Secretary

FINAL AWARD

Employee: John Dedear

Injury No. 99-146294

Dependents: N/A

Employer: Proffer Transportation, Inc. d/b/a Proffer Produce Company

Additional Party: Second Injury Fund (Claim dismissed prior to hearing)

Insurer: Missouri Employers Mutual Insurance

Hearing Date: April 10, 2006

Checked by: JK/kh

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

  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? October 21, 1999
  5. State location where accident occurred or occupational disease contracted: California (contract of employment
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? Yes
11.Describe work employee was doing and how accident happened or occupational disease contracted: The employee injured his low back when he fell while loading his tractor-trailer withproduce.
12.Did accident or occupational disease cause death? No
13.Parts of body injured by accident or occupational disease: Low back
14.Nature and extent of any permanent disability: 30% of the body as a whole
15.Compensation paid to date for temporary total disability: None
16.Value necessary medical aid paid to date by employer-insurer: None
17.Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer-insurer: Undetermined
18.Employee's average weekly wage: $381.29
19.Weekly compensation rate: $254.19
20.Method wages computation: By agreement
21.Amount of compensation payable:
Permanent partial disability: 254.19 per week for 120 weeks (30,502.80)
22.Second Injury Fund liability: Claim dismissed by employee prior to hearing
23.Future requirements awarded: None
24.Said payments shall be payable as provided in the findings of fact and rulings of law, and shall be subject to modification and review as provided bylaw.
25.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 fornecessary legal services rendered to the claimant: Robert Miller and Brown & Crouppen (see findings).
26.The compensation awarded to claimant is also subject to a medical lien and child support liens (see findings).
27.
28.
29.FINDINGS OF FACT AND RULINGS OF LAW
30.On April 10, 2006, the employee, John Dedear, appeared in person and by his attorney, Mr. Robert Miller, for a

hearing for a final award. The employer-insurer was represented at the hearing by its attorney, Mr. Patrick McHugh. At the time of the hearing, the parties agreed on certain undisputed facts and identified the issues that were in dispute. These undisputed facts and issues, together with the findings of fact and rulings of law, are set forth below as follows:

UNDISPUTED FACTS:

  1. On or about October 21, 1999, Proffer Transportation, Inc., doing business as Proffer Produce Company was a covered employer operating under and subject to the provisions of the Missouri Workers' Compensation Act, and its liability was fully insured by Missouri Employers Mutual Insurance.
  2. On or about October 21, 1999, John Dedear was an employee of Proffer Transportation, Inc. and was working under the provisions of the Missouri Workers' Compensation Act.
  3. The employer had notice of the employee's accident.
  4. The employee's claim for compensation was filed within the time allowed by law.
  5. The employee's average weekly wage was $\ 381.29 and his rate of compensation for temporary total disability, permanent total disability and permanent partial disability is $\ 254.19.
  6. No medical aid was furnished by the employer-insurer.
  7. No temporary total disability benefits were paid by the employer-insurer.
  8. The employee is making no claim for additional medical aid, either past or future.

ISSUES:

  1. Accident
  2. Medical causation
  3. Nature and extent of disability
  4. Medicaid lien
  5. Child support lien
  6. Attorney's lien

EXHIBITS:

The following exhibits were offered and admitted into evidence:

Employee's Exhibits

A. Medical records of St. Anthony Medical Center dated October 25, 1999

B. Medical records of Mineral Area Regional Medical Center from November 9, 1999 through September 23, 2002

C. Medical records of Dr. David B. Robson

D. Medical records of Dr. Rustico Ramos

E. Medical records of Parkland Health Center

F. Medical records of Missouri Baptist Medical Center

G. Medical records of Veterans Administration Hospital

H. Medical records of Dr. David M. Peeples

I. Deposition of Dr. David B. Robson

J. Deposition of Ms. Donna Kisslinger-Abrahm

K-1. Phone records of Proffer Transportation, Inc.

K-2. John Dedear log book

K-3. New Star bill of lading

K-4. Proffer Transportation, Inc. wage statement

K-5. John Dedear fuel card printout

K-7. John Dedear physical examination dated January 28, 1999

K-20. Bruce's Am-Best Truck Stop invoice 615048

L. Map of Southern California

M. Copies from Southwestern Bell telephone book

N. Drawing of trailer

O. Calendar

P. Attorney's lien from Brown \& Crouppen

Q. Social Security cards

Employer-Insurer's Exhibits

  1. Report of Injury
  2. November 15, 1999 Claim for Compensation
  3. July 9, 2003 amended Claim for Compensation
  4. Deposition of Dr. Daniel Kitchens
  5. Driver's application for employment
  6. Certified copies of records from Division of Workers' Compensation
  7. Social Security card
  8. Deposition of John Dedear taken January 6, 2000
  9. Deposition of John Dedear taken October 26, 2005
  10. Termination Form

FINDINGS OF FACT:

At the time of his accident, John Dedear (hereinafter referred to as "Employee") was employed as a truck driver by Proffer Transportation, Inc., d/b/a Proffer Produce Company (hereinafter referred to as "Proffer" or "Employer").

On October 21, 1999, the employee was loading produce into his trailer at a location near Bakersfield, California when he slipped and fell landing on his buttocks. The height of the employee's fall is not clear. In his original deposition, the employee testified that his foot slipped as he was stepping from the pallet onto the floor, and he fell backwards onto his buttocks (Employer-insurer's exhibit 8, page 55). The medical records, however, indicate the employee told several healthcare providers that the fell 13 feet onto his sacrum (Employee's exhibits E, B, G and H). At the time of the hearing, the employee did not specify how far he fell, but during his cross examination the employee agreed that he was inside the trailer and his fall could not have been 13 feet because the trailer was only 9 feet high. This example is one of several instances in which the employee exaggerated, embellished or distorted the facts during the course of his medical treatment.

After the employee slipped and fell onto his buttocks, the employee "laughed it off", and did not have any symptoms other than his "butt was sore and wet" (Employer-insurer's exhibit 8, page 55). During his return trip from California to Missouri, the employee testified that he started experiencing stiffness and pain in his low back, and numbness in his right leg. Both the employee and his wife, Marion, testified that they reported his fall in several telephone conversations with Mr. Chuck Skiles. Mr. Skiles was the dispatcher for Proffer who had brokered the employee's load. Mr. Skiles was no longer working for Proffer at the time of the hearing, and emphatically denied that either the employee or his wife had ever reported a fall or injury during these telephone conversations. Mr. Skiles indicated that he did not become aware that the employee was hurt until almost two weeks later, after the employee had been to the hospital.

After returning to Missouri and delivering his load, the employee went to the emergency room at St. Anthony's Medical Center on October 25, 1999. The employee gave a history of falling in his trailer four days ago, and was complaining of low back and right leg pain. The emergency room physician diagnosed low bac

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