To recover against the Second Injury Fund, Claimant must prove he sustained a compensable injury, referred to as "the last injury." § 287.220.1 RSMo. He must prove he had a preexisting permanent partial disability, whether from a compensable injury or otherwise, that: (1) existed at the time the last injury was sustained; (2) was of such seriousness as to constitute a hindrance or obstacle to his employment or reemployment; and (3) equals a minimum of 50 weeks of compensation for injuries to the body as a whole or 15 percent for major extremities. Dunn v. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund, 272 S.W.3d 267, 272 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008). "Once the threshold is met, all of [Claimant's] disabilities should be considered in calculating the extent of the fund's liability." Treasurer v. Witte, 414 S.W.3d 455, 468 (Mo. banc 2013). "By its plain and ordinary language, section 287.220.1 does not require a disability from the last injury to meet a numerical threshold to trigger liability." Witte, 414 S.W.3d at 466.
The Second Injury Fund is liable for permanent total disability if the disability from the last work injury and the preexisting disabilities together result in total disability.
[E]xcept that if the compensation for which the employer at the time of the last injury is liable is less than the compensation provided in this chapter for permanent total disability, then in addition to the compensation for which the employer is liable and after the completion of payment of the compensation by the employer, the employee shall be paid the remainder of the compensation that would be due for permanent total disability under Section 287.200 out of a special fund known as the "Second Injury Fund"....
§ 287.220.1 RSMo.
This case poses quite a predicament because Dr. Volarich, while finding Claimant permanently and totally disabled, did so by combining the preexisting disabilities with both of the January 2007 work accidents. When asked to separate his restrictions, Dr. Volarich failed to do so. He did state, however, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the majority of the limitations were due to Claimant's preexisting conditions. Mr. Swearingin, while also opining that Claimant is unable to sustain employment on the open labor market, does not assist in drawing a demarcation between the January 3, 2007 and January 14, 2007 work accidents. This case is further complicated because the January 3, 2007 work accident was not at maximum medical improvement when the "last" accident occurred on January 14, 2007.
As recently held in Patterson v. Cent. Freight Lines, 452 S.W.3d 759, 766 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015), the Administrative Law Judge and the Commission can consider all of the evidence in determining the amount of an employee's disability and need not adhere to the same percentages assigned by experts." 452 S.W.3d at 767. "[U]ltimately, the employability of an individual is a technical matter within the Commission's expertise." Id.
Dr. Volarich and Mr. Swearingin elucidated these facts with which I agree: Claimant is permanently and totally disabled. Claimant was permanent and totally disabled as of January 2008, prior to Claimant's subsequent 2010 car accidents. Further, Claimant's permanent total disability is not from either one of January 2007 injuries in isolation, nor is it from the preexisting conditions in isolation. I disagree with the experts, however, that the combination of disabilities which create permanent total disability must include the January 3, 2007 work injuries. I find and conclude, based on the whole record, that Claimant's permanent and total disability arises from the disabling injuries caused from the last accident on January 14, 2007, combined with the permanent disabilities preexisting that date.
Claimant's preexisting conditions were significant, disabling, and posed hindrances or obstacles to his employment or re-employment. His surgically repaired knee with hardware clearly kept him from military service. He had difficulty standing, although he did it. While he could function, his preexisting right knee "hurt like hell." While he worked extraordinarily long hours and drove to multiple locations on a regular basis, he was in pain and had to get off his feet as soon as he arrived home. He had ongoing pain in his back, and had to guard his back at work. He had chest pain that bothered him for years. As much as these conditions posed him problems in the past, Claimant was quite clear in his testimony that his pain was even worse after the January 14, 2007 accident. Moreover, it was after the January 14, 2007 work accident, and three months of self-accommodation, and heart problems, that he finally determined he simply could not continue.
I reach this determination having considered Claimant's limited education, age, academic skills, and past employment, the expert opinions, and particularly Claimant's testimony. Most convincing in this case is Claimant's demonstrated extraordinary work ethic despite continual pain. If Claimant could work, I am convinced he would be working.
I further find and conclude, however, that Claimant did not present sufficient credible evidence demonstrating that the preexisting disabilities, combined with the injuries from the January 3, 2007 accident were greater than their simple sum. Therefore, I award no enhanced permanent partial disability against the Second Injury Fund in relation to Injury No. 07-000330.