| FINAL AWARD ALLOWING COMPENSATION (Affirming Award and Decision of Administrative Law Judge with Supplemental Opinion) |
| Employee: | Alan D. Borders |
| Employer: | Francis Howell R-III School District |
| Insurer: | Missouri United School Insurance Company |
| Additional Party: | Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund |
| 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, heard the parties’ arguments, reviewed the evidence, and considered the whole record, we find that the award of the administrative law judge allowing 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. |
| Discussion Medical causation The parties presented voluminous medical records and expert testimony on the issue whether the accident of May 17, 2007, was the prevailing factor causing employee to sustain any medical condition or disability. The administrative law judge thoroughly summarized all of this evidence. Then, on page 17 of his award, the administrative law judge resolved the issue of medical causation as follows: “The claimant has prevailed by proving that his work-related injury caused substantial permanent disability based on the great weight of the evidence.” |
| We agree that employee met his burden of proof with respect to the issue of medical causation, but discern a need to supplement the administrative law judge’s finding in order to apply the appropriate statutory test and to make clear what specific medical conditions we believe resulted from the accident. The test for medical causation applicable to this claim is set forth in § 287.020.3(1) RSMo, which provides, in relevant part, as follows: |
| An injury by accident is compensable only if the accident was the prevailing factor in causing both the resulting medical condition and disability. “The prevailing factor” is defined to be the primary factor, in relation to any other factor, causing both the resulting medical condition and disability. |
| We find persuasive the unanimous expert medical opinions from Drs. Volarich, Margherita, and Coyle that the accident caused employee to suffer a herniated disc in his lumbar spine at L5-S1. We acknowledge that the evaluating psychiatrists Drs. Stillings and Smith disagreed whether employee suffered any psychiatric injury as a result of the accident. Dr. Stillings opined that the accident caused employee to suffer a major depressive |
Improve: Alan D. Borders
- 2 -
disorder with an associated 25% psychiatric permanent partial disability of the body as a whole, as well as a pain disorder with an associated 10% psychiatric permanent partial disability of the body as a whole. Dr. Stillings also believed employee suffered from some preexisting psychiatric permanent partial disability stemming in part from the emotional and physical abuse employee endured at the hands of his father.
Dr. Smith, on the other hand, opined that the accident did not cause employee to suffer any psychiatric injury, and that employee presently suffers from the effects of preexisting somatization and personality disorders that account for what Dr. Smith described as a history of employee exaggerating his pain complaints. We note that on cross-examination, Dr. Smith conceded that she did not hew to the criteria set forth in the DSM¹ for establishing a diagnosis of somatization disorder, in that employee's history of pain complaints correlates to actual diagnosed conditions. We note also that Dr. Smith's opinions regarding employee's condition appear to stem largely from her own belief that an acute injury can never be the cause of a pain disorder, and that such issues are always personality-driven and thus preexisting by default.
After careful consideration, we find Dr. Stillings's medical causation opinion more persuasive. We find that the accident was the prevailing factor causing employee to suffer the resulting medical conditions of a herniated disc in his lumbar spine at L5-S1, a major depressive disorder, a pain disorder, and the disability associated therewith.
**Nature and extent of permanent disability**
The parties dispute whether employee is permanently and totally disabled, and if so, whether employer or the Second Injury Fund is liable for permanent total disability benefits. We defer to the administrative law judge's observations and findings with regard to employee's presentation at the hearing, and we ultimately agree with the administrative law judge that employee is permanently and totally disabled as a result of the primary injury considered in isolation, but we wish to provide some supplemental comments to clarify our reasoning.
Employer argues that the administrative law judge misunderstood Dr. Smith's testimony, pointing to the following statement on page 24 of the administrative law judge's award: "While Dr. Stillings diagnosed a pain disorder from the occurrence, Dr. Smith opined that the claimant had a disorder due to his reaction to the pain from the occurrence." Although we agree that this particular statement is somewhat unclear in that it is susceptible to a reading that suggests the administrative law judge believed Dr. Smith identified a disorder as resulting from the work injury, we are convinced from the context in which the statement appears that the administrative law judge fully understood Dr. Smith's testimony (as we do) to constitute an opinion that employee did not suffer any psychiatric injury whatsoever as a result of the accident. We have found the opinions from Dr. Smith lacking persuasive force, however.
We were more persuaded by the testimony from Dr. Stillings that employee is suffering from major depressive and pain disorders as a result of the primary injury. Combined with
¹ Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Dr. Smith agreed that this text, developed by the American Psychiatric Association, establishes the criteria for diagnosing mental disorders.
the credible testimony from Dr. Volarich that employee should be permitted to recline when needed owing to the effects of the work injury, and the unanimous opinions from the vocational experts that this restriction renders employee unable to compete for work in the open labor market, and absent persuasive expert psychiatric evidence that employee's current experience of pain (and consequent need to lie down) is the product of the effects of employee's primary low back injury acting in combination with some partially disabling preexisting psychiatric condition of ill-being, we are convinced that the record best supports a finding that employee is permanently and totally disabled owing to the work injury considered in isolation. We so find.