Kristy Sanborn v. Jackson Clay D/B/A Post Cab Company
Decision date: April 3, 20096 pages
Summary
The Commission affirmed the administrative law judge's decision denying workers' compensation benefits in this motor vehicle accident case. The employee failed to appear at the final hearing on February 2, 2009, and no compensable injury was found under Missouri law.
Caption
| Employee: | Kristy Sanborn |
| Employer: | Jackson Clay D/B/A Post Cab Company |
| Insurer: | Travelers Commercial Casualty Insurance |
| 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 February 24, 2009, and awards no compensation in the above-captioned case. | |
| The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge David L. Zerrer, issued February 24, 2009, is attached and incorporated by this reference. | |
| Given at Jefferson City, State of Missouri, this 3rd day of April 2009. | |
| LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION | |
| William F. Ringer, Chairman | |
| Alice A. Bartlett, Member | |
| John J. Hickey, Member | |
| Attest: | |
| Secretary |
Before the <br> DIVISION OF WORKERS' <br> COMPENSATION <br> Department of Labor and Industrial Relations of Missouri <br> Jefferson City, Missouri
Dependents:
Employer: Jackson Clay D/B/A Post Cab Company
Additional Party:
Insurer: Travelers Commercial Casualty Insurance
Hearing Date: February 2, 2009
Checked by: DLZ
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RULINGS OF LAW
- Are any benefits awarded herein? No
- Was the injury or occupational disease compensable under Chapter 287? No
- Was there an accident or incident of occupational disease under the Law? No
- Date of accident or onset of occupational disease: August 20, 2003
- State location where accident occurred or occupational disease was contracted: Pulaski County, Missouri
- Was above employee in employ of above employer at time of alleged accident or occupational disease? Yes
- Did employer receive proper notice? Yes
- Did accident or occupational disease arise out of and in the course of the employment? Yes
- Was claim for compensation filed within time required by Law? Yes
- Was employer insured by above insurer? Yes
- Describe work employee was doing and how accident occurred or occupational disease contracted: Motor vehicle accident
- Did accident or occupational disease cause death? No Date of death? N/A
- Part(s) of body injured by accident or occupational disease:
- Nature and extent of any permanent disability:
- Compensation paid to-date for temporary disability: $\ 7,658.16
- Value necessary medical aid paid to date by employer/insurer? $\ 6,194.73
- Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer/insurer? None
- Employee's average weekly wages: $\ 226.37
- Weekly compensation rate: $\ 166.49
- Method wages computation: Employer agreed
COMPENSATION PAYABLE
- Amount of compensation payable: None
Unpaid medical expenses: None
-0- weeks of temporary total disability (or temporary partial disability)
-0- weeks of permanent partial disability from Employer
-0- weeks of disfigurement from Employer
- Second Injury Fund liability: Yes No X Open
Total: None
- Future requirements awarded: None
FINDINGS OF FACT and RULINGS OF LAW:
Employee: Kristy Sanborn
Injury No: 03-086027
Before the
DIVISION OF WORKERS'
COMPENSATION
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations of Missouri
Jefferson City, Missouri
Dependents:
Employer: Jackson Clay D/B/A Post Cab Company
Additional Party
On the 2nd day of February, 2009, the date specifically set for final hearing of the above-referenced claim, the claim was called for final hearing. Claimant, Kristy Sanborn, failed to appear for the hearing. Employer appeared by its attorney, Mary Thompson. The Treasurer of the State of Missouri, as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, is not a party to this claim.
Employer admitted that temporary disability benefits have been paid in the amount of $\ 7,658.16, prior to the date of this hearing. Employer admitted that it paid medical benefits in the amount of $\ 6,194.73, prior to the date of this hearing. Employer further stated that the parties had earlier agreed to an average weekly wage of $\ 226.37, with a compensation rate of $\ 166.49, said agreement having been reached at a time when Claimant was represented by counsel.
ISSUES
Whether the accident caused the injuries and disabilities for which benefits are now being claimed.
Whether the Claimant has sustained injuries that will require future medical care in order to cure and relieve the Claimant of the effects of the injuries.
What is the proper rate.
Whether temporary total benefits are owed to the Claimant.
The nature and extent of any permanent disabilities.
DISCUSSION
On the date of final hearing, Claimant contacted the Division office in Springfield, Missouri, and made an oral motion for continuance without the presence or knowledge of Employer. Administrative Law Judge Mahon overruled Claimant's request for continuance. Judge Mahon notified Claimant that she would be required to attend the final hearing in Lebanon, Missouri, on that date. Neither Claimant nor any legal representative of Claimant appeared at the final hearing.
A legal file was established consisting of the following documents, to wit: Report of Injury, Claim for Compensation, Answer to Claim for Compensation, Notice of Hearing, Receipt for Certified Mail No. 70031010000253813914 .
Since the Claimant failed to appear, there were no stipulations as to facts not at issue in this claim.
The record was opened to establish which parties were present and ready for hearing. Claimant's case in chief was called. No person or representative appearing on behalf of Claimant, no evidence was adduced on behalf of Claimant in her case in chief.
Case in chief on behalf of Employer was called. Employer stands on its Answer heretofore filed and the admissions and statements made with regard to compensation rate, amount of temporary total disability benefits paid, and amount of medical expense paid prior to the hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RULINGS OF LAW
Whether the accident caused the injuries and disabilities of which benefits are now being claimed.
The report of injury states that Claimant was in an auto accident and injured her forehead. The Claim for Compensation states that Claimant was operating a cab for the Employer when she was involved in an accident resulting in injury to the Claimant. The Answer to Claim for Compensation admits that Claimant was involved in an accident which arose out of and in the course of her employment but denies that Claimant suffered any disability as a result of the accident.
There is no further evidence adduced at the hearing which would be considered competent and substantial evidence that Claimant's accident was the cause of Claimant suffering any permanent disability.
After a review of all the evidence adduced at the hearing, including the legal file adopted herein, and based on the record as a whole, I find that Claimant has failed in her burden to prove, within reasonable probability, that Claimant's accident of August 20, 2003, caused the injuries and disabilities which Claimant claims in her Claim for Compensation. There are no medical treatment records placed in evidence, notwithstanding the fact that Employer
admitted that it provided medical treatment in the amount of $\ 6,194.73. The record is devoid of any specific evidence to establish what treatment Claimant received as a result to the accident of August 20, 2003, that caused any disabilities.
I find this issue in favor of Employer.
Whether the Claimant has sustained injuries that will require future medical care in order to cure and relieve the Claimant of the effects of the injuries.
There is no evidence adduced at the hearing as to whether the need for further or future medical treatment will be necessary for the Claimant. After a review of all the evidence adduced at the hearing, I find that Claimant has failed in her burden to prove, by reasonable probability, that Claimant will require future medical care in order to cure and relieve the Claimant of the effects of the injuries.
I find this issue in favor of the Employer.
What is the proper rate.
The only evidence as to proper compensation rate adduced at the hearing is a statement by Employer's counsel that, prior to date of the hearing, at a time after the claim was filed and Claimant was represented by counsel, the parties agreed that the average weekly wage as of the Claimant's date of injury should be $\ 266.37, and the compensation rate should be $\ 166.49. The Report of Injury states that Claimant's rate is $\ 200.00 but does not delineate if that rate is the average weekly wage or the compensation rate. The Claim for Compensation alleges that the average weekly wage is $\ 450.00; however, that claim is denied by the Employer's answer. There was no oral evidence and no other written evidence adduced at the hearing with regard to the proper compensation rate.
After a review of all the evidence adduced at the hearing, and based on the record as a whole, I find that there is substantial and competent evidence to establish a compensation rate. I further find that the proper compensation rate for this claim is $\ 166.49 per week.
Whether temporary total benefits are owed to the Claimant.
The Employer admitted that $\ 7,658.16 in temporary total disability benefits were paid to the Claimant prior to the hearing date. There is no evidence adduced at the hearing, other than Employer's attorney statement, with regard to payment of or entitlement to temporary total disability payments.
After a review of the evidence adduced at the hearing, I find that Claimant has failed in her burden to prove, by reasonable probability, that there is competent and substantial evidence that Claimant is entitled to any temporary total disability benefit, other than that which has been paid to her prior to the date of this hearing.
I find this issue in favor of Employer.
The nature and extent of any permanent disabilities.
Employer's Answer denied that Claimant suffered any permanent disability from the accident of August 20, 2003. Neither Claimant nor any representative for Claimant presented any evidence of permanent partial or permanent total disability which may have resulted from this accident.
After a review of the evidence adduced at the hearing, and based on the record as a whole, I find that Claimant has failed in her burden to prove, by reasonable probability, that Claimant has suffered any permanent disability as a result of her injury of August 20, 2003.
I find this issue in favor of Employer.
Based on the above findings of fact and rulings of law, it is hereby ordered that Claimant shall be denied any further benefits as a result of her accident and injury of August 20, 2003.
A true copy: Attest:
/s/ Peter Lyskowski
Peter Lyskowski
Acting Director
Division of Workers' Compensation
Related Decisions
Flemons v. Land of Oz Academy(2022)
January 25, 2022#17-003266
The Commission affirmed the ALJ's award denying workers' compensation benefits to employee Calvin D. Flemons for injuries sustained in a rear-end collision while operating a company-owned vehicle on January 10, 2017. The Commission found that the employee failed to prove the accident was the prevailing factor in causing the injury or that it arose from a risk related to employment rather than a hazard to which he would have been equally exposed in normal nonemployment life.
Lane v. Via Bancourier(2018)
October 31, 2018#09-029009
The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision denying the employee's Second Injury Fund claim, finding that the employee was not a covered worker under Missouri's Workers' Compensation Law because she was classified as an independent contractor rather than a statutory employee. The employee, a pick-up and delivery driver, sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on January 29, 2009, but failed to meet the statutory employment test under § 287.040.1 RSMo.
Elsworth v. Wayne County, Missouri(2017)
March 8, 2017#07-026920
The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the administrative law judge's award of workers' compensation to employee Dustin Elsworth for a motor vehicle accident injury occurring on March 30, 2007, rejecting the employer's argument for a safety penalty reduction based on the employee's alleged ADHD and texting while driving. The Commission held that negligence is immaterial in workers' compensation proceedings and that a safety penalty under § 287.120.5 can only apply when an employer has established specific safety rules or devices with employee knowledge and reasonable enforcement efforts.
Schwarzen v. MCS National, Inc.(2017)
January 16, 2017#16-102117
The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's award of workers' compensation benefits for Carl Schwarzen, who suffered compensable injuries including concussion, cervical osteoarthritis aggravation, knee osteoarthritis aggravation, and soft tissue injuries when his vehicle was struck from behind while traveling to a job site in Nebraska on July 20, 2016. The award is temporary or partial in nature, with the proceedings remaining open for further orders and a final award.
Morris v. Captain D's(2016)
December 15, 2016#07-000330
The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's award allowing workers' compensation benefits to James Morris for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on January 3, 2007, while traveling to a company store in Lebanon, Missouri. The claimant was found to have sustained permanent partial disability affecting multiple body parts, with the injury arising out of and in the course of employment.