Missouri Insurance Lawyer Blog

In a case decided September 13, 2011, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, announced a "substantial departure from prior law" in holding that employees, who suffered work-related occupational diseases, now have the option of suing their employers in civil court. The case is State ex rel. KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company v. Cook, 353 S.W.3d 14.

Prior to the 2005 Amendment to the Missouri Workers Compensation laws, employees were prohibited from filing lawsuits in civil court against their employers for occupational diseases. The legal remedy for recovering for an "Occupational Disease" was exclusively a Workers Compensation claim. The 2005 amendment changed the definition of "accident" to now be limited to an injury caused by a specific event during a single work shift.

Further, the 2005 amendments require the workers compensation statutes to be strictly construed. Although "occupational disease" is defined in the workers compensation amendments, the court found that the plain language of the 2005 amendments' exclusivity provisions are limited to injuries or death caused by an "accident". Now, under the 2005 "strict construction" requirement, the court found that the law's exclusivity provision no longer applies to conditions such as asbestosis and cancer. Therefore, workers are now allowed to pursue claims against their employers directly in the civil courts for diseases and medical conditions caused by their employment.

Continue reading "WORKERS WHO SUFFER WORK RELATED OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES NOW HAVE THE OPTION OF SUING THEIR EMPLOYER IN CIVIL COURT" »

Government officials have been warning for some time that the Second Injury Fund for injured workers was running out of funds to pay claims. With nearly 30,000 outstanding claims and 700 new claims being filed each month, this is a big problem for the attorney general. See this recent news story from the Belleville News Democrat.

The Missouri legislature is again considering amending the current Missouri Workers' Compensation statutes. Just six years ago Missouri legislatures changed the statutes in an attempt to make it tougher to qualify for Workers' Compensation. The proposed changes, as set out in House Bill 162, make it easier for injured workers to qualify for compensation by adding occupational diseases and the acts of co-employees to the coverage designated by the statues. This alteration to the current statutes would prevent an injured employee from filing a claim against a co-employee in a Missouri Circuit Court.

On November 9, 2010, in Robinson v. Hooker, 323 S.W.3d 418, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, ruled, based on the current Workers' Compensation statutes, that an injured employee who had a claim against an employer that did fall under the Workers' Compensation statutes could still recover damages against a co-employee in a subsequent tort claim. The ruling by the court in Robinson allowed an injured employee to sue a co-employee whose negligent actions resulted in injury. If House Bill 162 becomes law, injured employees will be limited to ONLY what they can recover through the Missouri Workers' Compensation statutes, no matter whether a co-employee's negligent actions were the cause of the injury.

In the Robinson case, Mr. Robinson's right eye was injured when Ms. Hooker used a high pressure hose negligently. As a result of the injury, Mr. Robinson is now blind in his right eye. Mr. Robinson's employer's Workers' Compensation insurance carrier settled Mr. Robinson's claim, and Mr. Robinson brought suit against Ms. Hooker for damages resulting from her negligence. If House Bill 162 becomes law, Mr. Robinson would have been barred from bringing suit against Ms. Hooker even though she may have acted negligently and caused him to lose sight in his right eye.

There has been much discussion and much litigation in the worker's compensation area since 2005, when the Missouri legislature, under the Blunt administration, made several changes to the Workers' Compensation Law. Those changes included narrowing the definitions of "injury", "accident", and "injury arising out of and in the course of"; and changing the Court's interpretation of the statutes from a liberal statutory construction to a strict statutory construction.

Recently, the Court of Appeals, Southern District, overturned a final award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission which had denied benefits to a registered nurse who suffered chronic tendonitis of the peroneal tendon, which was caused in part by calcifications in the tendons of her foot which required surgery. Pile v. Lake Regional Health System, 321 S.W.3d 463 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010). Her physician opined that her work at the hospital was the prevailing factor of her injury and was consistent with another doctor's determination that walking caused Claimant's tendonitis. The Commission had found that had the Claimant not been exposed to excess walking, as her job required, she would not have sustained injury. However, the Commission inappropriately found that because she was also exposed to walking outside of her employment that her injury was not compensable under workers' compensation law.
The Appellate Court held that under the "strict statutory construction" requirements, in situations such as this, where the work nexus is clear, there is no need to consider whether the worker would have been equally exposed to the risk in normal non-employment life. Only if the hazard or risk is unrelated to the employment is it necessary to determine whether the claimant is equally exposed to the same hazard or risk outside of employment.

The risk or hazard to which the Claimant, Denise Pile, was exposed due to her employment was the development of brittle bones in her foot due to tendonitis, which in turn was caused by the prolonged walking required by her job duties as a nurse. Thus, there was a clear connection between the risk or hazard of injury, the injury itself and her employment. The Court explained that to hold that a claimant may not recover unless her employment exposed her to any risk that she was not exposed to in everyday life would eviscerate almost any claim for workers' compensation. The legislature could not have intended such an absurd result.

Continue reading "Appellate Court Clarifies Worker's Compensation Laws" »

On Tuesday, August 3, 2010, in a far-reaching decision, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, handed down Robinson v. Hooker, Case No. WD71207, which applied the 2005 "strict construction" amendment to the Missouri Workers Compensation Act, and allowed lawsuits against negligent co-workers to proceed in civil court. It determined that co-worker liability is no longer protected under the shield of workers compensation.

Prior to 2005, Missouri statute 287.800 mandated that all provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act be liberally construed. Under this standard, courts broadly interpreted the Act to extend benefits to the largest possible class and resolved any doubts as to the right of compensation in favor of the employee.

Continue reading "Significant Missouri Workers Compensation Case Allows Claims Against Co-Employees to Proceed In Civil Court" »

If you are a business owner and employ workers, you may wonder if you are required to carry Workers' Compensation coverage. As a general rule, employers with five or more employees must carry it. For the purposes of Workers' Compensation, an employee is any full or part-time worker, including seasonal and temporary workers. There are exceptions for a small group of service employees, such as farm laborers, domestic servants and commercial motor-carrier owner-operators. Another exception is that a contractor must carry the coverage, even if they only have one employee because of the high likelihood of workplace injuries.

Failing to provide coverage when required is a class A misdemeanor. The penalty fine is equal to three times the annual premium you should have paid, up to $50,000. In addition to the criminal charge and fines, you will also be held responsible for the costs of any injuries your employees sustained at work during the time you were not covered. Repeat violations can earn you a class D felony.

If you are a business owner and you aren't sure about whether you are required to provide Workers' Compensation coverage for your employees, you can call the Division of Workers' Compensation at 573-751-4231 or 888-837-6069 for assistance. You can also visit their website.

Continue reading "Who Is Required To Carry Workers' Compensation Coverage?" »

Missouri has a state-mandated insurance program called Workers' Compensation. Most companies whose businesses are in Missouri are required to carry the Workers' Compensation insurance on their employees. The employee can file a claim against it in the event they are injured on the job. Workers' Compensation is supposed to cover medical treatment related to the workplace injury. It also provides temporary disability payments equal to up to 2/3 of the employees average weekly wage after 3 days of work are missed. In the event that the employee has a permanent impairment or is unable to return to work, additional payments are required. If the injury resulted in the employee's death, the benefits are paid to the surviving dependants. In return for providing their employees with Workers' Compensation coverage, the employers are protected from most civil lawsuits over workplace injuries.

The Division of Workers' Compensation of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations is the regulatory division of our state government that oversees the Workers' Compensation program. When an employee is injured, the claim is filed with the Division of Workers' Compensation, through which any disputes are also handled.

For more information regarding Workers' Compensation and injured workers, visit the Missouri Division of Workers' Compensation website.

Continue reading "What is Workers' Compensation?" »