Issue 1: Nature and extent of permanent partial disability.
Issue 2: Liability, if any, of the Second Injury Fund.
On July 11, 2013, claimant sustained a compensable work injury that resulted in permanent partial disability of 7.5 % of the left ankle; I further find that the disability was of a reduced-value ankle of 91.45 weeks, due to the previous left ankle injuries. ${ }^{25} Thus, this injury resulted in permanent partial disability of just 6.86 weeks. { }^{26}$
I also find that at the time of the injury, claimant had the following pre-existing permanent partial disabilities that met the statutory requirements and were of such seriousness as to constitute a hindrance or obstacle to employment or re-employment: 3.5 % of the left wrist; 3 % of the left ankle; 10 % of the body as a whole referable to the groin; 38 % of the left ankle; and 15 % of the right knee.
[^0]
[^0]: ${ }^{19} Meilves v. Morris, 422 S.W.2d 335, 399 (Mo. 1968).
{ }^{20} Griggs v. A.B. Chance Company, 503 S.W.2d 697, 703 (Mo.App. W.D. 1974).
{ }^{21}$ Dunn v. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund, 272 S.W.3d 267, 272 (Mo.App. E.D. 2008) (Citations omitted).
${ }^{22}$ Section 287.220.1, RSMo.; Anderson v. Emerson Elec. Co., 698 S.W.2d 574, 576 (Mo.App. 1985).
${ }^{23} Brown v. Treasurer of Missouri, 795 S.W.2d 479, 482 (Mo.App. 1990).
{ }^{24} Section 287.430, RSMo.
{ }^{25}$ The 2008 injury to the left ankle resulted in 58.9 weeks of disability and the 2012 work injury to the ankle resulted in an additional 4.65 weeks of disability. In this case, it is appropriate to reduce the value of the ankle by these amounts ( $155-58.9-4.65=91.45 weeks).
{ }^{26}$ This number has been rounded up from 6.85875 weeks.
Based upon a careful review, I find that claimant has failed to meet his burden of proof and thus his claim for compensation against the Second Injury Fund fails. In making this determination, I find that claimant did not provide credible and convincing evidence that the disability from the July 2013 ankle injury combined synergistically with his pre-existing disabilities to create an overall disability that is greater than their simple sum.
Any pending objections not expressly ruled on in this award are overruled.
Made by: $\qquad$
Vicky Ruth
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Workers' Compensation