 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McCormack v. Carmen Schell Construction Co.6/25/2002
inding. The court, on appeal, shall review only questions of law and may modify, reverse, remand for rehearing, or set aside the award upon any of the following grounds and no other:
(1) That the commission acted without or in excess of its powers;
(2) That the award was procured by fraud;
(3) That the facts found by the commission do not support the award;
(4) That there was not sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the award. Thorsen v. Sachs Elec. Co., 52 S.W.3d 611, 617 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001); Mo. Const. art. V, section 18.
Although an employee bears the burden of proving the elements of his claim to a "reasonable probability," it is well-settled that " he Workers' Compensation Law should be interpreted in a liberal manner in favor of the employee. Questions regarding the right of the employee to benefits must be resolved in the injured employee's favor." Avery v. City of Columbia, 966 S.W.2d 315, 320 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998) (citations omitted).
Generally, we review the findings of the Commission rather than those of the ALJ. Tangblade v. Lear Corp., 58 S.W.3d 662, 665 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001). However, when the Commission affirms or adopts the findings of the ALJ, as it has here except for its modification of the ALJ's award of costs, our review is of the decision and findings of the ALJ as adopted by the Commission. Id. We borrow from Davis v. Research Medical Center, 903 S.W.2d 557, 571 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995) (en banc) in explaining our standard of review:
The court applies a two-step process designed to determine whether the Commission could have reasonably made its findings and award upon consideration of all the evidence before it. In the first step, the court examines the whole record, viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the award, to determine if the record contains sufficient competent and substantial evidence to support the award. If not, the Commission's award must be reversed. If there is competent and substantial evidence supporting the award, the court moves to the second step, where it views the evidence in the light most favorable to the award, but must consider all evidence in the record, including that which opposes or is unfavorable to the award, take account of the overall effect of all of the evidence, and determine whether the award is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. In doing so, it takes into consideration the credibility determinations of the Commission and, if those determinations as to witnesses who gave live testimony before the ALJ are different than those made by the ALJ, it also considers the ALJ's credibility findings as well as the reasons, if any are given, why the Commission differed with those findings. Findings and awards of the Commission which are clearly the interpretation or application of the law, as distinguished from a determination of facts, are not binding on the court and fall within the court's province of independent review and correction where erroneous. And, where the findings of ultimate fact are reached not by a process of natural reasoning from the facts alone, but rather by application of law, it is a conclusion of law and subject to reversal by the court.
In this case, Schell conceded at oral argument that the Commission's award is supported by competent and substantial evidence but argues that the award is nonetheless against the weight of the evidence. Thus, the focus of our analysis will be on the second step of the standard of review set forth in Davis to determine whether the award is against the weight of the evidence. Id. "When courts speak of the 'we
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Missouri Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|