534 S.W.3d 256 (Mo.
App. S.D. 2016)
Full Opinion: [Thomas v. Forsyth Care Center]
Code(s): C028 Commutation
Factual
Background:
On 12/10/07, Claimant was awarded a Temporary Award of benefits in connection to an injury sustained during her employ with Employer. Employer failed to comply with that temporary award and Claimant was unable to obtain certain treatments, worsening her condition. Employer offered no explanation for its failure to comply.
Commission Decision:
Claimant was
later found to be PTD by an ALJ. Commission found Employer’s conduct to
demonstrate “attitude of brazen indifference toward its obligations” to
Claimant under the ALJ’s award. The ALJ’s decision was affirmed by the
Commission and from the Court of Appeal in an unpublished opinion (Appeal No.
SD32768). Following that decision, Claimant filed a motion for commutation of
her PTD benefits. At a Hearing, Claimant testified to having sustained
financial hardship in awaiting reimbursement for medical treatment. Employer
indicated that it would no longer pay Claimant mileage. The Commission found
Claimant’s testimony that commutation would help her avoid undue hardship was
credible and remained concerned that Employer would continue to ignore its
obligations. Employer appealed this commutation.
Analysis/Holding:
The Court found that the Commission’s
concerns that Employer’s well documented history of disregarding ALJ’s
temporary award would be indicative of future attempts by Employer to ignore
its obligations, jeopardizing the financial security of Claimant’s family. The
Court reiterated the holding that “an employer’s duty to provide statutorily
required medical aid to an Employee is absolute and unqualified.” Martin v. Town & Country Supermkts, 220
S.W.3d 836, 844 (Mo. App. 2007). Here, Employer fell short of this obligation,
causing harm to Claimant. Claimant should not be required to repeatedly seek
redress in order to hold Employer to its statutory obligation to provide her
medical aid.
The Takeaway:
The courts were influenced by the Employer’s
history of non-compliance. While this action or lack thereof is extremely rare,
Employers should take its obligations under the law seriously if it wishes to
avoid penalties and commutations.