460 S.W.3d 370 (Mo. App. W. D. 2015)
Full Opinion: [Archer v. City of Cameron]
Code(s): C026 PTD; C019 Employment
Factual
Background:
Claimant
was operating a skid loader on 1/16/08 when he struck a manhole causing the
machine to stop abruptly which forced Claimant into the windshield. He injured
several parts of his spine and left shoulder. As a result of this accident, he
was placed on permanent restrictions but he continued to work for his employer
with accommodations from the fall of 2008 through 9/16/10. During this time
period he accepted help from his coworkers, took frequent breaks, and did not
have to perform the same types of duties that he performed prior to his work
injury. While working this accommodated job on 9/1/10, he sustained another
work injury to his mid to low back. Claimant alleged that he was PTD as a
result of his work injuries.
Commission Decision:
The
Commission found that Claimant was PTD due to the 2008 injury in isolation,
which reversed the finding of SIF liability for PTD benefits that was found by
the ALJ.
Analysis/Holding:
In finding Employer liable for PTD benefits, the Court reiterated that the well-established test for determining PTD is whether the worker is able to compete in the open labor market. The Court relied on the facts that Claimant performed highly accommodated work after the 2008 injury, had minimal work experience outside of manual labor, and had limited reading comprehension skills. Ultimately, they agreed that no employer in the usual course of business would reasonably be expected to hire Claimant in the physical condition in which he was left after the 2008 injury.
The Court affirmed the decision of the Commission.
The Takeaway:
Returning
an injured worker back to work in an accommodated position does not mean that
they are employable in the open labor market. Good fortune in obtaining or
maintaining work other than through competition does not preclude a finding of
total disability.