The administrative law judge found that employee sustained an injury to his low back as a result of the April 13, 2006, accident but he denied employee's claim for permanent partial disability referable to his lumbar condition. The administrative law judge reasoned:
The Court had previously ruled in favor of the employee on the issue of medical causation regarding his back. Dr. Chabot's opinion was that any problems with the employee's back were pre-existing and, therefore, were not medically causally related to his accident. He provided a 0 % rating. Dr. Volarich's opinion was that the employee's injury to his back was medically causally related to the accident of April 13, 2006. He rated the employee's permanent partial disability to his back as 221 / 2 % of the body as a whole. However, he testified that he could not say what portion of his 221 / 2 % rating was due to the pre-existing condition. Dr. Volarich gave a rating of 45 % permanent disability to the employee's neck.
The Court believes that the employee injured his back in the April 13, 2006 accident and believes that he incurred some permanent disability to his back as a result of that accident. However, the Court is unable to order that the employer-insurer pay any permanent disability compensation for the employee's back as the employee was not able to provide any expert
[^0]
[^0]: ${ }^{1}$ Statutory references are to the Revised Statutes of Missouri 2005, unless otherwise indicated.
enidence separating the disability from the employee's preexisting back conditions from the disability that resulted from the April 13, 2006 accident.
The employee has the burden to prove the nature and extent of disability attributable to each injury. The Court finds that the medical opinion of Dr. Volarich is not sufficient for the employee to meet his burden of proof on his claim for permanent partial disability for the low back. Based on a review of the evidence and case law, the Court finds that the employee has failed to meet his burden of proof as to what percentage of permanent partial disability he sustained for the injury to his low back as a result of the compensable work related accident of April 13, 2006. The employee is not awarded any permanent partial disability benefits for any disability sustained to his back.
We disagree with the administrative law judge's analysis and conclusions regarding employee's lumbar conditions.
Dr. Volarich testified that employee's April 13, 2006, accident was the prevailing factor in causing employee's disc bulges at L4-5 and L5-S1 and employee's resulting lumbar syndrome. Dr. Volarich considered the following factors when reaching this conclusion: employee had no low back symptoms before the April 2006 work accident; the October 2, 2006, MRI of employee's lumbar spine revealed well-maintained disc spaces and minimal degenerative disc disease; the healthy presentation of the discs suggested no degenerative indication for lumbar disc bulging.
Contrary to the administrative law judge's finding, Dr. Volarich apportioned permanent partial disability between employee's preexisting lumbar conditions and his work-related lumbar condition. Dr. Volarich testified that he would assign no permanent disability to employee's preexisting lumbar conditions because employee had no symptoms before the work injury. In other words, Dr. Volarich assigned 0\% disability to employee's preexisting lumbar conditions and 22.5 % permanent partial disability of the body as a whole to employee's work-related lumbar condition. We find credible Dr. Volarich's opinions regarding employee's lumbar conditions. We find employee sustained a 22.5 % permanent partial disability of the body as a whole referable to his lumbar spine as a result of the April 13, 2006, work accident.
We also disagree with the administrative law judge's conclusion that employee is not entitled to an award of future medical care. In order to prove he is entitled to an award of future medical care, employee had the burden of proving there exists a reasonable probability future medical treatment is needed. ${ }^{2}$ Dr. Volarich testified that there was a reasonable probability that employee will need future medical treatment, particularly as relates to his cervical fusion. We find credible this opinion of Dr. Volarich. Employee is entitled to an award of such future medical care as is reasonably necessary to cure and relieve employee of the effects of his injury.
[^0]
[^0]: ${ }^{2}$ Concepcion v. Lear Corp., 173 S.W.3d 368, 372 (Mo. App. 2005).