 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Endicott v. Display Technologies6/25/2002
h Center, 829 S.W.2d 35, 37 (Mo. App. 1992); Weniger v. Pulitzer Publishing Co., 860 S.W.2d 359, 361 (Mo. App. 1993). See also Kintz v. Schnucks Market, Inc., 889 S.W.2d 121, 124 (Mo. App. 1994) ("There may be cases where notice is required for a claim of injury from repetitive trauma"). None of these cases, however, denied benefits because the claimant did not notify the employer of an occupational disease. Elgersma, 829 S.W.2d at 38 (employer had actual notice of claim, without prejudice due to untimely notice -- benefits awarded); Weniger, 860 S.W.2d at 362 (benefits denied due to the two-year statute of limitation in section 287.430); Bryant v. Ireco, Inc., 963 S.W.2d 346, 348-49 (Mo. App. 1997) (disease equally known to claimant and employer -- benefits awarded); Kintz, 889 S.W.2d at 124 (employer claimed no prejudice -- benefits awarded).
This dicta should not be followed because the statutes do not require an employee to notify the employer of occupational diseases. By section 287.420, an employer must receive notice of an injury, for compensation proceedings to be maintained. However, notice is required after an "accident," describing the "time, place, and nature of the injury." Section 287.420. By this plain language, section 287.420 does not encompass occupational diseases. See sections 287.020.2 and 287.067.1; cf. 287.127.1(2).
The statute's history confirms this meaning. The notice requirement in section 287.420 has not changed since the original compensation law in 1925. H.B. 112, sec. 38, 1925 Mo. Laws 395; S.B. 214, sec. 387.420, 1965 Mo. Laws 410. The original compensation law did not include occupational diseases. H.B. 112, sec. 7(b), 1925 Mo. Laws 380; H.B. 498, sec. 1, 1931 Mo. Laws 383. When occupational diseases were comprehensively added to the compensation law, the amendment referenced the statute of limitations, but not the notice provision in 287.420. Section 287.063.6 RSMo 1959, now codified as Section 287.063.3. The notice requirement in section 287.420 does not apply to occupational diseases. Maxon, 9 S.W.3d at 733; Bryant, 963 S.W.2d at 348; Weninger, 860 S.W.2d at 361; Elgersma, 829 S.W.2d at 37; Prater v. Thorngate, Ltd., 761 S.W.2d 226, 229 (Mo. App. 1988).
The exception in section 287.067.7 does not apply in this case, because Endicott had over three months of exposure with GTI. As the last employer to expose Endicott to the hazard of the three occupational diseases for which claim is made, GTI is solely liable under 287.063.2.
III.
The decision of the Commission is reversed, and the case is remanded.
All concur.
Page 1 2 3 Missouri Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|