 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Grime v. Altec Industries6/11/2002
ed on his 1986 injury. Thus, the issue on which the case turned was whether Mr. Grime's work conditions, after his return to work in October of 1986, caused the occupational disease for which Mr. Grime now seeks compensation.
The ALJ assessed Mr. Grime with 6% permanent partial disability of the body as a whole. Consequently, Mr. Grime was awarded benefits under Chapter 287. The Commission affirmed the award. The crucial piece of evidence was a medical report from Dr. James Hopkins, which is discussed below.
This appeal by Employer followed.
On appeal, Employer claims that the Commission erred in upholding the award of permanent partial disability benefits because Mr. Grime failed to (1) establish that he sustained an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of employment and (2) separate out any pre-existing disability from his current disability.
Standard of Review
Section 287.495 provides the standard of review for a workers' compensation case. It states in relevant part:
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.
This court's process of reviewing the Commission's decision is two-fold:
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. Davis v. Research Med. Ctr., 903 S.W.2d 557, 571 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995).
Whether Occupational Disease Was Caused by Post 1986 Employment
In point one, Employer claims that Mr. Grime failed to establish that he sustained an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of employment. Specifically, Employer argues that Mr. Grime's medical evidence does not establish with a reasonable degree of medical probability that Mr. Grime sustained an occupational disease after Mr. Grime's return to work following his 1986 bilateral carpal tunnel releases. This court agrees.
Claimant has the burden of proving all essential elements of a claim, including causation. Decker v. Square D Co., 974 S.W.2d 667, 670 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998). The question of causation is one for medical testimony, without which a finding for claimant would be based on mere conjecture and speculation and not on substantial evidence. Jacobs v. City of Jefferson, 991 S.W.2d 693, 696 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999). The claimant bears the burden of proving a direct causal relationship between the conditions of his employment and the occupational disease. Id. In cases in which a worker seeks compensation for carpal tunnel syndrome, he or she must submit a medical expert who can establish the probability that working conditions caused
Page 1 2 3 4 Missouri Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|