I have reviewed the evidence, and considered the whole record. Based on my review of the evidence as well as my consideration of the relevant provisions of the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law, I disagree with the majority's decision to affirm the administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision.
The ALJ and Commission majority found that employee is permanently and totally disabled (PTD) from the 2016 primary injury combined with three preexisting disabilities:
- September 13, 2010 injury: 32.5 % of the body as a whole (BAW) referable to the lumbar spine;
- September 13, 2010 injury: 30\% of the left elbow (63 weeks) and a 10\% load factor (19.3 weeks); and
- July 16, 2007 injury: 17.5 % of the left elbow ( 36.75 weeks).
In determining that the Second Injury Fund (Fund) bears liability for PTD, the ALJ and Commission majority stacked two distinct injuries, combining the qualifying left elbow injury in September 13, 2010 with the non-qualifying July 16, 2007 left elbow injury. I find no authority for that approach.
There is no provision in the Workers' Compensation Act that expressly permits stacking to determine Fund liability for PTD. Further, the Supreme Court of Missouri and the lower appellate courts have not ruled on whether cumulative disabilities can be stacked to find the Fund liable under $\S 287.220 .3$ RSMo.
It is clear, however, that the intent of the Missouri Legislature's 2013 amendments to § 287.220.3 RSMo was to limit the Fund's liability. Treasurer of the State as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund v. Parker, 622 S.W.3d 178, 181 (Mo. banc 2021). I conclude that the ALJ's decision as affirmed by the Commission majority in this case incorrectly expands the Fund's Liability and is contrary to the legislature's intent.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the majority's decision in this matter.