No. 09-018179 (Mo. Lab. & Indust. Rel. Comm’n.
Jan. 15, 2019)
|Full Opinion: [Danny L. Harris v. Ralls County]
C025 Medical Bills; C032 Pre-existing Condition; C007 Accident; C017 Credibility of Witnesses
Factual
Background:
Claimant was a construction dump truck driver. While
working, he had to replace a wheel for a back hoe, and felt pain in his back. Over
the first few months of treatment with Dr. Coyle and Dr. Cantrell, he was
diagnosed with spondylolysis and injury to the lumbar spine, but he also showed
signs of degenerative conditions. He was released to light duty, and underwent
a functional capacity evaluation showing he could lift 55-75 lbs. He was
released for full duty with permanent restrictions of 50 lbs. and alternating
sitting and standing every hour. Follow up exams showed more signs of
congenital and degenerative conditions. After continued complaints, Dr.
Cantrell stated that medications employee continued to use were due to
degenerative processes.
ALJ Decision:
ALJ Denigan awarded PTD benefits and
cited Weinbauer v. Grey Eagle, 661 S.W. 2d 652, (Mo. App. 1983) to
support his conclusion that: "An inherent weakness or bodily defect, such
as spondylolisthesis, occurring in conjunction with an abnormal strain ... will
support a claim for compensation." He also held employer responsible for
future medical treatment, and awarded 25% lien for all attorney services.
Commission Decision:
The Commission disagreed with the use of
Weinbauer as
it
was
decided prior to the change in § 287.020.2. Based on the new standard, they
held that early-on objective evidence did not show an identifiable source of
the employee’s complaints. No doctor identified a specific condition from the
imaging studies which could directly be traced to the work incident as the
prevailing factor. The court cited § 287.190.6 RSMo. that objective medical
findings are to prevail over subjective medical findings. They decided he
was only permanently and partially disable and allowed 5% PPD.
The Takeaway:
This commission is finally applying the
subjective versus objective test outlined in section 287.190.6 in a way that is
truly looking for objective evidence from the medical tests performed.