SD35637 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018)
Full Opinion: [Vernis Farmer v. Treasurer of the
State of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund]
Code(s): C017 – Credibility of Witnesses; C003 – SIF Liability; C026 – PTD
Factual
Background:
Claimant alleged two injuries against
ER; cervical spine on 12/03/07 and psychological problems on 12/26/07. He
argued PTD against SIF in combination with several pre-existing
conditions. Dr. Volarich found claimant PTD
but admitted he had not reviewed some additional records regarding a subsequent
accident. Claimant’s expert psychologist testified claimant was inconsistent,
his story was confusing, and diagnosed a personality disorder. In 1998 Claimant
filed for SSDI and was subsequently found to have received $15,000 in benefits
while at the same time working for ER. In 2009 he was caught underreporting his
earnings. He was criminally indicted for his conduct and found guilty. During
the Hearing, the SIF offered into evidence a copy of the decision for his
conviction of social security fraud and a copy of the judgement of conviction
and sentence. Claimant argued on appeal to the Commission and the Court of
Appeals their admission was improper because it caused outcome-determinative
prejudice.
Commission Decision:
The Commission adopted the ALJ finding
that there was ample evidence to show claimant’s lack of credibility and the
employee’s responses to questioning related to prior felonies was equivocal
enough to warrant admission of SIF’s exhibits. Also, claimant failed to show
work was the prevailing factor in his injuries for both.
Analysis/Holding:
The court emphasized the standard of
review and made three major findings: (1) claimant failed to appreciate that
his credibility was crucial in solving his claim, (2) he failed to demonstrate
how he was prejudiced by the admission of the exhibits, and (3) the court must
be deferential to the Commission’s findings of credibility and expert
testimony. The claimant was not prejudiced by the exhibits because he admitted
to the crimes documented, which further supports the conclusion he was not a
credible witness. In addition, it was reasonable for the Commission to find
claimant’s expert unpersuasive because the expert testimony was based upon
information provided by claimant, who, based on all the evidence was an
unreliable historian.
The Takeaway:
The Commission is free to “believe or disbelieve” evidence of credibility and appellate courts will defer to the Commission’s credibility determinations.