Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

Bernice Scott v. Bellefontaine Gardens Nursing & Rehab Center

Decision date: October 7, 2014Injury #11-0997939 pages

Summary

The Commission affirmed the administrative law judge's award denying workers' compensation benefits to employee Bernice Scott, finding she failed to establish the requisite causal connection between her employment conditions and her injury. The court determined that Scott could not identify the specific hazard or risk that caused her injury, and therefore failed to demonstrate that the injury arose out of and in the course of her employment under Missouri law.

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

FINAL AWARD DENYING COMPENSATION (Affirming Award and Decision of Administrative Law Judge with Supplemental Opinion)
Injury No. 11-099793
Employee:Bernice Scott
Employer:Bellefontaine Gardens Nursing & Rehab Center
Insurer:Self-Insured
This workers' compensation case is submitted to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) for review as provided by § 287.480 RSMo. Having read the briefs, reviewed the evidence, and considered the whole record, we find that the award of the administrative law judge denying compensation is supported by competent and substantial evidence and was made in accordance with the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law. Pursuant to § 286.090 RSMo, we affirm the award and decision of the administrative law judge with this supplemental opinion.
Preliminaries
On July 16, 2014, the administrative law judge issued her award in this matter. On August 1, 2014, employee, acting pro se, filed a timely application for review with the Commission. On August 20, 2014, the Commission received a “Motion For Leave To File Motion To Dismiss Out Of Time And Motion To Dismiss Application For Review” (Motion) filed by counsel on behalf of employer/insurer. Employer/insurer allege in the Motion that employee’s application for review is insufficiently specific for purposes of Commission rule 8 C.S.R. 20-3.030(3)(A). In the Motion, counsel alleges he and his law firm were prevented from timely filing the Motion because they were busy moving offices and setting up telephones and computers. The Commission has not received any response from employee to employer/insurer’s Motion.Interestingly, in the prayer for relief set forth at the conclusion of its Motion, employer/insurer request that we “allow the within Motion to Dismiss overrule the Motion to Dismiss Application for Review and proceed with consideration of said Review on the merits.” Consistent with employer/insurer’s prayer for relief, we hereby allow employer/insurer to file its Motion out of time, overrule its Motion, and will proceed with a consideration of the merits of employee’s application for review.For the benefit of the parties, we additionally conclude that employee’s application for review is sufficiently specific for purposes of 8 C.S.R. 20-3.030(3)(A). In her application, employee alleges:
My lawyer did not give information of condition at work that caused injury. Working condition were so rushed and stressful do to administration cut back on staffing and I had 5 plus job duty’s and my lawyer did not present it in court.
It is sufficiently clear to us from the foregoing that employee is challenging the administrative law judge’s determination that employee failed to meet her burden of

proving the requisite causal connection between the conditions of her employment and her injury. Employee cites specific conditions that she believed contributed to cause her injury. Although not a model of clarity or specificity, we do not deem the application for review so deficient as to warrant dismissal.

Injury arising out of and in the course of the employment

The parties dispute whether employee's injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment. We agree with the administrative law judge's ultimate determination that employee's injuries cannot be deemed to arise out of and in the course of employment for purposes of $\S 287.020 .3(2)$ RSMo as that provision was interpreted by the court in Johme v. St. John's Mercy Healthcare, 366 S.W.3d 504 (Mo. 2012).

The Missouri courts have determined that where an employee fails to identify the specific hazard or risk that caused an injury, the employee fails to show that the injury arose out of and in the course of the employment. Porter v. RPCS, Inc., 402 S.W.3d 161, 174 (Mo. App. 2013). As employee admitted in her own testimony, she is unable to identify how or why she fell down at work, and her medical expert, Dr. Woiteshek, does not provide any explanation for why employee fell. This failure of proof prevents us from determining under $\S 287.020 .3(2)$ (b) whether employee's injury came from a hazard or risk unrelated to the employment to which workers would have been equally exposed outside of and unrelated to the employment in normal nonemployment life. For this reason, we must deny the claim for compensation.

Conclusion

We affirm and adopt the award of the administrative law judge, as supplemented herein.

The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Kathleen M. Hart, issued July 16, 2014, is attached and incorporated by this reference.

Given at Jefferson City, State of Missouri, this $7^{\text {th }}$ day of October 2014.

LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

John J. Larsen, Jr., Chairman

James G. Avery, Jr., Member

Curtis E. Chick, Jr., Member

Attest:

AWARD

Employee: Bernice Scott

Departments: $\mathrm{n} / \mathrm{a}$

Employer: Bellefontaine Gardens Nursing \& Rehab Center

Additional Party: none

Insurer: Self c/o Missouri Nursing Home Insurance Trust

Hearing Date: April 28, 2014

Injury No.: 11-099793

Before the

Division of Workers'

Compensation

Department of Labor and Industrial

Relations of Missouri

Jefferson City, Missouri

Checked by: KMH

FINDINGS OF FACT AND RULINGS OF LAW

  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? Yes
  4. Date of accident or onset of occupational disease: December 3, 2011
  5. State location where accident occurred or occupational disease was contracted: St. Louis
  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 twisted her right knee at work while walking to the nurse's station.
  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: right knee
  14. Nature and extent of any permanent disability: $\mathrm{n} / \mathrm{a}$
  15. Compensation paid to-date for temporary disability: None
  16. Value necessary medical aid paid to date by employer/insurer? $\ 719.90
  1. Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer/insurer? None
  2. Employee's average weekly wages: Unknown
  3. Weekly compensation rate: $\ 425.19 for PPD
  4. Method wages computation: Stipulation

COMPENSATION PAYABLE

  1. Amount of compensation payable:

weeks of permanent partial disability from Employer None

  1. Second Injury Fund liability:

No

TOTAL:

NONE

  1. Future requirements awarded: $\mathrm{n} / \mathrm{a}$

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 $\mathrm{n} / \mathrm{a}$ of all payments hereunder in favor of the following attorney for necessary legal services rendered to the claimant:

FINDINGS OF FACT and RULINGS OF LAW:

Employee: Bernice Scott

Injury No.: 11-099793

Dependents: n/a

Before the

Employer: Bellefontaine Gardens Nursing \& Rehabilitation Center

Division of Workers'

Additional Party: none

Department of Labor and Industrial

Relations of Missouri

Jefferson City, Missouri

Insurer: self c/o Missouri Nursing Home Insurance Trust

Checked by: KMH

A hearing was held on the above captioned matter April 28, 2014. Bernice Scott (Claimant) was represented by attorney Mark Cordes. Bellefontaine Gardens (Employer) was represented by attorney Patrick Reidy.

All objections not expressly ruled on in this award are overruled to the extent they conflict with this award.

Claimant alleges she injured her right knee by accident in the course and scope of her employment. Employer denies liability.

STIPULATIONS

The parties stipulated to the following:

  1. Employer and Claimant were operating under the provisions of the Missouri Workers' Compensation law on the alleged date of injury.
  2. Employer's liability was self insured through the Missouri Nursing Home Insurance Trust.
  3. Employer had notice of the alleged injury and a claim for compensation was timely filed.
  4. Claimant's rate for PPD is $\ 425.19.
  5. Employer paid no TTD benefits, and paid $\ 719.90 in medical benefits.

ISSUES

The parties stipulated the issues to be resolved are as follows:

  1. Accident
  2. Arising out of and in the course of employment
  3. Medical Causation
  4. PPD

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the competent and substantial evidence, my observations of Claimant at trial, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, I find:

  1. Claimant is a 49 year-old female who worked for Employer, off and on, several years as an LPN. The last date she worked for Employer was March 26, 2012. She has not worked since her last date with Employer, and testified she is collecting "SSA" disability now.
  2. At the time of this alleged work injury, Claimant had worked for Employer several months. She was the supervisor of the night shift, and worked 10:45 pm through 7:15 am on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights. She was responsible for the care of over 50 patients. She assisted CNAs in turning and lifting patients. She handled pain management, treatment, documentation, safety, and all aspects of patient care.
  3. On December 3, 2011, Claimant fell as she was walking to the nurse's station. She testified she does not know how or why she fell. Claimant testified she had unbearable pain into her right leg, and screamed for help. Two CNAs helped Claimant to the nurse's station. Claimant testified she was in so much pain; she immediately called the Director of Nursing and the Administrator to report her injury. Claimant did not speak to either of them that night. There was no one to cover for her, so Claimant finished her shift. Claimant testified her supervisor said she could not leave after her shift without completing an incident report. Claimant filled out the report, and called her son-in-law to pick her up. He took her directly to Touchette Hospital.
  4. The records from Touchette Hospital show Claimant was seen December 3, 2011, with complaints of right knee and ankle pain. She had mild swelling in her knee. Claimant testified she told the Emergency Room doctors she didn't know how she fell. One doctor noted Claimant's knee "gave out" while at work the night before and she denied any trauma. Another doctor noted Claimant was at work the night before, and the next thing she knew she was on the floor in pain, and she denied any injury. Another notation in the Emergency Room records indicates Claimant said she was working and felt her knee give out. Claimant was diagnosed with knee pain, given medications, and released.
  5. Claimant testified she could not work that weekend. She talked to the Director of Nursing on Monday, and was told to come in Friday until her workers' compensation kicked in. Employer sent Claimant to Concentra two weeks later. Claimant testified they did nothing for her on her first visit because Employer had not filled out the paperwork. Two to three days later, she went back to Concentra, and the doctor ordered two weeks of physical therapy. Claimant went to therapy, and it helped control the pain.
  6. The records from Concentra show an initial visit date of December 16, 2011. Claimant gave a history that she fell and hurt her right knee on December 3, 2011. She stated after directing an aide to assist a resident, she turned, and she suddenly fell down. She did not know why she fell. She did not trip on anything or slip. She "just found myself on the

floor." She said she tried to work over the next few days, but couldn't, so she saw her private physician. He gave her a knee brace, and scheduled an MRI for December 21.

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