Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

Marleta Boykins-Walls v. Normandy School District

Decision date: November 13, 2017Injury #13-09818113 pages

Summary

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission modified the administrative law judge's award regarding unpaid past medical expenses for an employee who sustained injuries to both knees. The Commission affirmed the ALJ's findings on permanent partial disability and temporary total disability but reversed the denial of medical expense compensation.

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 ALLOWING COMPENSATION (Modifying Award and Decision of Administrative Law Judge)
Injury No.: 13-098181
Employee:Marleta Boykins-Walls
Employers:Normandy School District
Insurer:Missouri United School Insurance Company
This workers' compensation case is submitted to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) for review as provided by § 287.480 RSMo. We have reviewed the evidence, read the briefs, heard the parties’ arguments, and considered the whole record. Pursuant to § 286.090 RSMo, we modify the award and decision of of the administrative law judge to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, decision and modifications set forth below.
Preliminaries
The parties asked the administrative law judge to resolve the following issues: (1) nature and extent of permanent partial disability; (2) temporary total disability from March 5, 2014, through March 17, 2014; (3) unpaid medical expenses stipulated in the amount of $4,561.00; (4) future medical.
The administrative law judge determined as follows:
1) The only medical opinion that rated the employee as having any permanent partial disability, that of Dr. Droege, was not credible and the record does not support an award of permanent partial disability;
2) At no time did a treating physician take the employee off work; therefore the employer is not liable for TTD benefits for the period of March 5, 2014, to March 17, 2014;
3) The employee sought medical treatment additional to that employer provided from Dr. Droege, Dr. Shekhani, and SSM DePaul Health Center. The employee has a right to seek medical treatment on her own and at her own expense; however, employer is not liable for medical bills incurred with Dr. Droege, the MRI ordered by Dr. Droege, Dr. Shekhani or her visit to the emergency room at SSM DePaul Health Center;
4) Because nothing in the record suggests any basis for an award of future medical treatment, no future medical benefits are awarded.

Employee: Marleta Boykins-Walls

On February 22, 2017, the employee, Marleta Boykins-Walls, filed a timely application for review alleging the administrative law judge erred:

1) In finding the employee did not sustain any permanent partial disability in that the substantial and competent medical evidence shows that there was permanent disability to both the left and right knees, supported by the medical records, objective testing and treatment (ultrasound, MRI and injections) and deposition testimony of the doctors and testimony of the employee.

2) In finding the employee is not entitled to TTD from March 5, 2014, to March 17, 2014 in that the ALJ erroneously uses an incorrect legal standard, one that is not contained in the statute and not supported by case law.

3) In finding that the employer/insurer is not responsible for unpaid medical expenses totaling $\ 4,561.00, again using an incorrect legal standard that is not supported by statute or case law.

4) In finding that the employer/insurer is not responsible for future medical expenses for the employee in that the weight of the medical evidence supports an award for future medical treatment and the employee testified to her need and desire for additional medical treatment in the future.

For the reasons set forth below, we modify the award and decision of the administrative law judge referable to the issue of unpaid past medical expenses.

Discussion

Section 287.140. RSMo controls with respect to the issue of past medical expenses. This statute provides, in relevant part:

  1. In addition to all other compensation paid to the employee under this section, the employee shall receive and the employer shall provide such medical, surgical, chiropractic, and hospital treatment, including nursing, custodial, ambulance, and medicines, as may reasonably be required after the injury or disability, to cure and relieve from the effects of the injury. If the employee desires, he shall have the right to select his own physician, surgeon, or other such requirement at his own expense. . .
  2. The employer shall have the right to select the licensed treating physician, surgeon, chiropractic physician, or other health care provider; provided, however, that such physicians, surgeons or other

Injury No.: 13-098181

Employee: Marleta Boykins-Walls

- 3 -

health care providers shall offer only those services authorized within the scope of their licenses.

As the court held in *Downing v. McDonald's Sirloin Stockade*, 418 S.W.3d 526 (Mo. App. 2014):

> *'[A]n employer's duty to provide statutorily-required medical aid to an employee is absolute and unqualified.' That is, [§ 287.140] requires an employer to provide an injured employee medical care but allows the employer to select the medical provider.' Thus, '[a]n employer is held liable for independent medical treatment incurred only when the employer has notice that the employee needs treatment, or a demand is made on the employer to provide medical treatment, and the employer refuses or fails to provide the needed treatment* (emphasis added).' *Id.* 529.

In this case, the employer admits that on December 6, 2013, the employee sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of her employment. Employer referred the employee to Concentra Medical Center the day of her injury for treatment. Concentra physician Dr. Gary Gray discharged the employee from his care on December 26, 2013.

The employee had an obligation to make reasonable efforts to notify employer of her need for additional medical care after her December 26, 2013, release by Concentra. The employer is not liable if it did not know and reasonably could not have known of the employee's need for additional medical care. Furthermore, brief delays in scheduling appointments other than in emergency situations do not render employer/insurer liable for unauthorized care.

We find that the employee's testimony regarding her attempts to notify employer of her need for additional medical care after her December 26, 2013, release from Concentra is so vague that employer had no liability to provide additional medical treatment until after the employee, through her attorney, filed a claim for compensation on or about January 10, 2014, acknowledged by the Division of Workers' Compensation on January 14, 2014. We find claimant's claim for compensation notified employer of her need for additional medical treatment as of January 15, 2014, by specifically stating, "Employee is in need of and officially demands medical treatment."

On January 28, 2014, employer advised employee's attorney that employer scheduled an appointment for the employee at Concentra Medical Center on Thursday, January 30, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. However, when the employee reported to Concentra forty minutes early for her appointment that day, Concentra refused to provide treatment, citing a lack of authorization from employer to reopen the employee's case.

---

1 *Transcript*, 291.

2 *Id.* Employer and Insurer's Exhibit A, 368-371.

3 *Id.* 370.

4 *Id.* Employee's Exhibit 10, 328.

5 *Id.* 324-325.

Employee:Marleta Boykins-WallsInjury No.:13-098181
Employer thereafter provided employee no further medical treatment until February 10, 2014, the date of the employee’s appointment with orthopedic physician Michael J. Milne.
Pursuant to employee’s notice of her need for additional medical treatment as of January 15, 2014, we find that treatment of her left knee by Dr. William J. Droege from January 17, 2014, through January 27, 2014, was reasonable and necessary. We note that Dr. Droege’s treatment was consistent with the type of treatment (physical therapy) both Dr. Milne and Dr. Doll recommended and that employer eventually provided beginning March 11, 2014. We defer to the ALJ’s finding regarding the employee’s credibility. Specifically, we find there is no credible evidence of any injury other than referable to the employee’s left knee as of January 7, 2014, or thereafter.
Employee testified she sought Dr. Droege’s therapy to help improve the pain in her left knee relating to her work injury of December 6, 2013. Dr. Droege testified that all of the therapy he provided the employee was reasonable, necessary, and related to her December 6, 2013, work injury. ^{6 }
The following charges for Dr. Droege’s treatment from January 17, 2014, through January 27, 2014, are documented in the record ^{7 } :
DateCharges
January 17, 2014$187.00
January 20, 2014$149.00
January 22, 2014$149.00
January 24, 2014$149.00
January 27, 2014$149.00
Total:$783.00
Dr. Droege testified that, as of the date of the hearing, he had not submitted these bills to anyone for payment. These bills therefore remain outstanding.
An award of past medical expenses is supported when the record includes: (1) the bills themselves; (2) the medical records reflecting the treatment giving rise to the bills; and (3) testimony from the employee establishing the relationship between the bills and the disputed treatment. Martin v. Mid-America Farm Lines, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 105, 111-12 (Mo. 1989).
Employer has not advanced any evidence that would demonstrate that employee is not required to pay the billed amounts, that her liability for the disputed amounts was extinguished, or that the reason such liability was extinguished does not otherwise fall within the provisions of § 287.270 RSMo. See Farmer-Cummings v. Pers. Pool of Platte Cnty., 110 S.W.3d 818 (Mo. 2003), and Maness v. City of De Soto, 421 S.W.3d
^{6 } Transcript, 93.
^{ 7 } Id. 171-173.

532, 545 (Mo. App. 2014). We conclude employer is liable for charges by Dr. Droege for treatment during the period January 17, 2014, through January 27, 2014, in the amount of $\ 783.00.

Conclusion

The award of the administrative law judge is modified.

Employer is liable to employee for $\ 783.00 in past medical expenses.

This award is subject to a lien in favor of Crista Johnson, Attorney at Law, in the amount of 25 % for necessary legal services rendered.

Any past due compensation shall bear interest as provided by law.

The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Joseph P. Keaveny, issued February 3, 2017, is attached hereto and incorporated herein to the extent not inconsistent with this decision and award.

Given at Jefferson City, State of Missouri, this $\qquad 13 3^{\text {th }}$ day of November 2017.

LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

John J. Larsen, Jr., Chairman

VACANT

Member

Curtis E. Chick, Jr., Member

Attest:

AWARD

Employee:Marleta Boykins-WallsInjury No.: 13-098181
Dependents:N/ABefore the <br> Division of Workers' Compensation
Employer:Normandy School DistrictDepartment of Labor and <br> Industrial Relations
Additional PartyN/AOf Missouri
Insurer:Missouri United School Insurance Co.Jefferson City, Missouri
Hearing Date:November 21, 2016Checked by: JPK

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: $\quad 12 / 06 / 2013$
  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? Yes
  9. Was claim for compensation filed within

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

Related Decisions

affirmed

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the administrative law judge's award allowing workers' compensation benefits for an employee's left knee injury, including approval for total knee replacement and related medical care. One dissenting member argued the knee replacement did not flow from the work injury and that employer liability should be limited to the successful meniscectomies already performed.

knee5,412 words

The Commission reversed the ALJ's award granting workers' compensation benefits to a certified nursing assistant who injured her left knee while backing out of a narrow space between a bed and wall at a nursing home on March 5, 2015. The ALJ had found the injury work-related and awarded medical expenses, temporary total disability, mileage reimbursement, and permanent partial disability benefits, but the Commission determined this award was erroneous.

knee12,845 words
affirmed

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's award denying workers' compensation benefits to Jamie E. Overstreet for a knee injury sustained on February 12, 2018. A dissenting opinion argued the injury arose out of employment and that the employee was entitled to temporary total disability, permanent partial disability, and future medical benefits.

knee6,228 words
affirmed

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the administrative law judge's award of workers' compensation benefits for Jackie W. Hooper's work-related knee injuries involving two tears to the medical meniscus. The commission found the award was supported by competent and substantial evidence and in accordance with Missouri Workers' Compensation Law, though one member filed a dissenting opinion regarding the scope of future medical treatment responsibility.

knee5,575 words

Davis v. Negri Plumbing(2020)

January 14, 2020#10-069808

reversed

The Commission reversed the administrative law judge's decision and found the Second Injury Fund (SIF) liable for compensation in this case involving a preexisting condition of osteogenesis imperfecta. The employee sustained a compensable right knee injury on September 1, 2010, and the Commission determined that the preexisting condition constituted a hindrance or obstacle to employment for purposes of SIF liability.

knee10,924 words