Due to the date of the filing of employee's claim, § 287.220.3(1), RSMo, applies in this matter. It provides as follows:
- All claims against the second injury fund for injuries occurring after January 1, 2014, and all claims against the second injury fund involving a subsequent compensable injury which is an occupational disease filed after January 1, 2014, shall be compensated as provided in this subsection.
Injury No.: 13-104992
Employee: Bruce Krysl
- 2 -
The dispositive portion in this section refers to "all claims against the second injury fund involving a subsequent compensable injury which is an occupational disease filed after January 1, 2014, shall be compensated as provided in this subsection."1 We understand this language to mean that when one (1) files a workers' compensation claim (2) against the Second Injury Fund where (3) the subsequent compensable injury is an occupational disease and (4) the filing date is after January 1, 2014, then § 287.220.3, RSMo, applies.2
Here, employee's claim against the Second Injury Fund involves a subsequent compensable injury which is an occupational disease. Employee filed his claim on July 5, 2016. Therefore, § 287.220.3, RSMo, applies in this matter.
Here, employee is only seeking permanent partial disability against the Second Injury Fund. Pursuant to § 287.220.3(2), RSMo, employee's claim for permanent partial disability is not allowed against the Second Injury Fund. The subsection provides as follows:
(2) No claims for permanent partial disability occurring after January 1, 2014, shall be filed against the second injury fund.
Because § 287.220.3, RSMo, prevents employee's claim for permanent partial disability against the Second Injury Fund, as a matter of law, we must deny employee's claim. All other issues are moot.3
**Decision**
We reverse the award of the administrative law judge.
Employee's occupational disease claim against the Second Injury Fund for permanent partial disability is denied because it is barred by § 287.220.3, RSMo.
1 Although this particular issue is a matter of first impression, one Missouri appellate court stated, "with respect to claims involving occupational diseases, the legislature specifically used the phrase 'subsequent compensable injury' to describe when the 2013 modification to the law applies to the employee's claim." *Gattenby v. Treasurer*, 516 S.W.3d 859, 862 (Mo. App. 2017). The *Gattenby* court did not involve an occupational disease claim. However, the court noticed different wording in the statute for claims against the Second Injury Fund that involved an occupational disease as the subsequent compensable injury, noting that the focus on the filing date, instead of the date of injury, indicated that in such occupational disease claims, "it matters not when the 'preexisting' injury occurred." *Id.* at 862 n.3. We also note that the Chairman of the Commission was a member of the 97th General Assembly and voted on the exact changes. This exact fact pattern was expressly contemplated during the debate and was meant to be covered by the plain language in § 287.220.3, RSMo.
2 We note that the administrative law judge did not apply the law as amended in 2013, but the law as provided in 2005. The 2013 law is the appropriate law for this matter as the claim was filed on July 5, 2016.
3 We acknowledge that parties stipulated to the date of injury of the occupational disease as January 1, 2013. However, the stipulation does not change the filing date. Nor does such stipulation prevail over the language of the statute.