The parties identify a single issue on appeal to the Commission, whether employee is entitled to future medical care arising from the July 22, 2014, work-related knee injury.
Employee's compensable work injury of the right knee resulted in surgery performed by Dr. David Denenny on September 2, 2014. Employee was released to full duty, however, his complaints of pain continued. He received injections to help with the pain on more than one occasion post-operative, through at least June 2015. *Transcript*, page 43, 309-311, 334-335. As of June 5, 2015, Dr. Robert Paul determined that employee was in need of future medical care as a result of employee's July 22, 2014 injury. He noted employee continued to be "quite symptomatic," at that time. *Transcript*, page 45. His opinion was that the medical care should be left open for an indefinite period for the ongoing pain management of the injury. *Transcript*, page 44. In its brief, employer/insurer concedes that this is "the only expert testimony regarding the need for future medical care." See *Appellant Brief*, page 4. Employer did not offer any expert testimony to controvert this medical opinion.
Dr. Paul rendered his opinion prior to a subsequent injury on January 14, 2016, the precise nature of which cannot be ascertained from the record before us. However, we cannot ignore competent expert testimony on record that is admittedly unrebutted and which is unimpeached. *Garibay v. Treasurer of Missouri*, 930 S.W. 2d 57, 61 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996). No award or defense can be sustained based on mere speculation. *Sanderson v. Producers Commission Association*, 229 S.W. 2d 563, 567 (Mo. 1950), *Shrock v. Wolfe Auto Sales, Inc.*, 358 S.W. 2d 812, 815 (Mo. 1962).
An award of future medical care is not only supported, it is essentially mandated by the facts before us. Employee's burden of proof regarding any claim for future medical is clearly set forth in *Tillotson v. St. Joseph Medical Center*, 347 S.W. 3d 511, (Mo. App. W.D. 2011). "The legal standard for determining an employer's obligation to afford
Injury No.: 14-060340
Employee: Ronald W. Reynolds
- 2 -
medical care is clearly and plainly articulated in § 287.140.1 as whether the treatment is reasonably required to cure and relieve the effects of the injury." It is not necessary to establish that the compensable injury is the prevailing factor that resulted in the need for continued treatment. It is only necessary to show that "the need for treatment and medication flow from the work injury." The fact that the medication or treatment may also benefit other conditions or non-compensable injury is irrelevant. *Id.* at 519.
The only medical opinion before us, (Dr. Robert Paul) opines that employee continued to be symptomatic after his injury and initial surgery, thereby establishing a reasonable probability of a need for future treatment flowing from the effects of the compensable injury. *Landman v Ice Cream Specialties, Inc.* 107 S.W. 3d 240, 248 (Mo. banc 2003). If the care flows from the accident, and a medical causal relationship between the condition and the compensable injury is established, employer is responsible for medical treatment, including future medical treatment. *Tillotson* at 518.
**Conclusion**
We affirm and adopt the award of the administrative law judge as supplemented herein.
The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Maureen Tilley, issued May 5, 2017, is attached and incorporated herein to the extent not inconsistent with this supplemental decision.
We approve and affirm the administrative law judge's allowance of attorney's fee herein as being fair and reasonable.
Any past due compensation shall bear interest as provided by law.
Given at Jefferson City, State of Missouri, this 20th day of June 2018.
LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
John J. Larsen, Jr., Chairman
Reid K. Forrester, Member
Curtis E. Chick, Jr., Member
Attest:
Secretary
Employee: Ronald W. Reynolds
Injury No. 14-060340