Stephen Clemons v. St. Louis Board of Education

(Affirming Award and Decision of Administrative Law Judge)

Injury No.: 99-145116

Employee: Stephen Clemons

Employer: St. Louis Board of Education

Insurer: Self-Insured

c/o CCMSI Insurance Services, Inc.

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

Date of Accident: Alleged October 14, 1999

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 August 10, 2006, and awards no compensation in the above-captioned case.

The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge John K. Ottenad, issued August 10, 2006, is attached and incorporated by this reference.

Given at Jefferson City, State of Missouri, this $25^{\text {th }}$ day of January 2007.

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: (alleged) up through October 14, 1999
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? 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: Claimant was employed as a Public Safety Officer for the St. Louis Board of Education and allegedly developed stress related problems from his job activities, including breaking up fights.
12. Did accident or occupational disease cause death? No Date of death? N/A
13. Part(s) of body injured by accident or occupational disease: (allegedly) Body as a Whole
14. Nature and extent of any permanent disability: N/A
15. Compensation paid to-date for temporary disability: $\ 0.00
16. Value necessary medical aid paid to date by employer/insurer? $\ 0.00

Employee: Stephen Clemons Injury No.: 99-145116

1. Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer/insurer? N/A
2. Employee's average weekly wages: $\ 377.72
3. Weekly compensation rate: $\ 251.82 for TTD/ $\ 251.82 for PPD
4. Method wages computation: By agreement (stipulation) of the parties

1. Amount of compensation payable: None

1. Future requirements awarded: None

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: Harry J. Nichols.

On May 1, 2006, the employee, Stephen Clemons, appeared in person and by his attorney, Mr. Harry J. Nichols, for a hearing for a final award on his claim against the employer, St. Louis Board of Education, which is Self-Insured C/O CCMSI Ins. Services, Inc. The employer, St. Louis Board of Education, which is Self-Insured C/O CCMSI Ins. Services, Inc., was represented at the hearing by its attorney, Mr. Eric S. Christensen. The Second Injury Fund is a party to this case, but did not participate in the hearing, since the Fund case is being left open by agreement of the parties. At the time of the hearing, the parties agreed on certain stipulated facts and identified the issues in dispute. These stipulations and the disputed issues, together with the findings of facts and rulings of law, are set forth below as follows:

1) Stephen Clemons (Claimant) has alleged an occupational disease claim with exposure up through October 14, 1999.

2) Claimant was an employee of the St. Louis Board of Education (Employer).

3) Venue is proper in the City of St Louis.

4) Employer received proper notice.

5) The Claim was filed within the time prescribed by the law.

Some of the records submitted at hearing contain highlighted portions or other marks. All of these marks were on these records at the time they were admitted into evidence and no other marks have been added since their admission on May 1, 2006.

Exhibits K and 3 were admitted with objections contained in the record. Unless otherwise specifically noted below, the objections are overruled and the testimony fully admitted into evidence.

Based on a comprehensive review of the substantial and competent evidence, including Claimant's testimony, expert medical opinions and depositions, medical records, and Division of Workers' Compensation records, as well as my personal observations of Claimant at hearing, I find:

1) Claimant is a 59-year old male who worked as a Public Safety Officer (Security Guard) for Employer for 8 or 9 years. His employment there ended in 2000. His job involved protecting the faculty, students and property at the facilities where he was assigned. The job duties, at various times, included writing reports, walking foot patrols, using metal detectors (hand-held and walk-through) to check every student for weapons, watching for gang activity and other illegal activities, protecting the building from fire hazards and then reporting to Special Services or contacting the authorities, if necessary. His job required him to break up fights on a continued basis.

2) Claimant worked at 6 or 7 different schools during his employment with Employer. The last school he worked at was AAA Bush, which is a middle school in South St. Louis. He worked there for approximately a year.

3) Claimant described some conflict in his employment situation because the Security Chief would say that the security guards work for him, but then the principals would say that the guards work for them. Claimant felt stuck in the middle between the supervisor and principal, which strained his relationship with the school administrators. Claimant said he got along well with his fellow officers though. Claimant said that he would report fights or gang activities and then they would transfer him because they did not like him reporting it. He explained that was the reason why he worked at so many different schools. He believed that every school had gang activity. He suggested that the administrators at the various schools were trying to cover up bad activity at their schools. He even described one occasion where he took a wad of money from a student, gave it to the office and never saw it again.

4) Claimant testified that he filed grievances at the schools where he worked. He said that he was passed over for the Rover job. He was initially offered the job, but turned it down because of the situation with his wife. He said that he was never offered that job again. He testified that when an outside contract security officer was promoted to Rover instead of him, he went to the Union, but nothing was done. He said that he was more qualified than most, but he did not get the job.

5) Claimant testified that he had encounters in some of the schools with the "Trench Coat Division" which was an exclusive club of intelligent students who were trouble. He said that they were plotting against the school, including the use of bombs, shooting or fighting. He said they were like the Columbine group. Every time something happened though, he said the principal squashed it. He said that there were also gangs in the schools, including GDs, 48 Specials, Crips, and Bloods.

6) Claimant testified that some of the weapons he found in school included knives, and a full b