[^0]
[^0]: ${ }^{22}$ Fischer v. Archdiocese of St. Louis, 793 S.W.2d 195, 198 (Mo. App. W.D. 1990); Grime v. Altec Indus., 83 S.W.3d 581, 583 (Mo. App. 2002).
${ }^{23} Griggs v. A.B. Chance Company, 503 S.W.2d 697, 703 (Mo. App. W.D. 1974).
{ }^{24} Wright v. Sports Associated, Inc., 887 S.W.2d 596, 600 (Mo. banc 1994).
{ }^{25} Hawkins v. Emerson Elec. Co., 676 S.W.2d 872, 977 (Mo. App. 1984).
{ }^{26} Cole v. Best Motor Lines, 303 S.W.2d 170, 174 (Mo. App. 1957).
{ }^{27}$ Webber v. Chrysler Corp., 826 S.W.2d 51, 54 (Mo. App. 1992); Hutchinson v. Tri State Motor Transit Co., 721 S.W.2d 158, 163 (Mo. App. 1986).
The employer/insurer argues that the claimant did not provide timely notice of her occupational disease, as required by section 287.420, RSMo. 2005. This section provides, in relevant part, as follows:
No proceedings for compensation for any occupational disease or repetitive trauma under this chapter shall be maintained unless written notice of the time, place and nature of the injury, and the name and address of the person injured, has been given to the employer no later than thirty days after the diagnosis of the condition unless the employee can prove that the employer was not prejudiced by failure to receive the notice.
The purpose of Section 287.420 is to give the employer timely opportunity to investigate the facts surrounding the accident or occupational disease, and to provide the employee with medical attention in order to minimize the disability. ${ }^{28}$
On April 18, 2008, claimant went to the office of the employer's nurse, Sherry Haynes, and told her that she was having trouble with her right arm. ${ }^{29}$ Ms. Haynes testified in her deposition as follows:
When [claimant] came in on April the $18^{\text {th }}$ she told me that her shoulder was hurting so bad that day that she couldn't work, and she had already talked to her own doctor and they were setting up an MRI.
And I said, "How did you hurt it?"
And she said, "I don't know," but she said, "I had to have hurt it here because I don't do anything at home."
Well, to be Workmen's Comp it has to be a specific injury, a specific time. And also, she had another ongoing claim that was related to upper extremities that we had also denied.
Nurse Haynes provided additional details regarding this encounter later in her deposition:
Q: Did Ms. Hannon ask you to process a workers' compensation claim?
A: Well, just when she came in she said she thought it happened on the job, so we told her no, we weren't going to process it at that time.
Q: And also not going to send her to a doctor?
A: Right.
[^0]
[^0]: ${ }^{28}$ Messersmith v. University of Missouri-Columbia, 43 S.W.3d 829, 832 (Mo. banc 2001).
${ }^{29}$ Claimant Exh. 2, pp. 7-8.
Q: Have you talked to any of Ms. Hannon's co-employees about her claim of shoulder injury?
A: No.
Q: Did Ms. Hannon tell you that her shoulder was stinging or burning when she came to you initially?
A: Possibly, because I didn't write down every word she said.
Q: What did you write down as far as what she said? If you could, just read that into the record, please:
A: "Shortly after nine o'clock a.m., Melody Hannon came in my office and said she was having trouble with her right arm. She could not raise her arm, and she thought she had a torn rotator cuff. She said her arm started hurting Wednesday and she has called Dr. King, her personal doctor, and they are going to set up an MRI. She wants us to pay for it as Workmen's Comp. She said she had to have hurt it here because she does not do anything at home, mostly she sets [sic] in a chair as she is too tired to do anything else.
I told her, as she had already contacted her doctor and set up the MRI, she could continue. I did not send her as Workmen's Comp. She said that is why she came to see me so I could set it up with another doctor if I wanted to.
I told Melody she could proceed on her own. ${ }^{30}$
Thus, the nurse employed by the employer prepared a written report containing the time, place, and nature of the injury, as well as the name of the person injured. This report was prepared less than thirty days after the accident. So whether this is a traumatic accident or repetitive trauma on April 15, 2008, the employer had written notice prepared by its own nurse. Moreover, that nurse affirmatively directed claimant to continue seeking her own medical care.
It is clear that the employer received actual notice of the work injury, and this actual knowledge is sufficient to provide the employer timely opportunity to investigate the claim and provide medical attention. Substantial evidence of actual notice makes a prima facie showing of absence of prejudice, which shifts the burden to the employer to show prejudice. ${ }^{31}$ The employer did not submit any evidence demonstrating that it was prejudiced in any way by the notice issue. To the contrary, the employer could have easily investigated the claim by speaking with
[^0]
[^0]: ${ }^{30} Claimant's Exh. 2, pp. 12-14.
{ }^{31}$ Doerr v. Teton Trans., Inc., 258 S.W.3d 514 (Mo. App. 2008).
Ms. Shirk, and it could have directed treatment. Instead, the company nurse declared that the injury was not a work injury and affirmatively directed the claimant to continue to seek treatment on her own.
I find that claimant meet her burden of proof regarding the issue of notice.