 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cromwell v. Hawkins11/27/2001
Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission
Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART.
Crahan and Mooney, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
Introduction
Brad Hawkins (Employer) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (the Commission) finding William Crowell (Employee) to be totally disabled, and awarding Employee past and future medical treatment expenses. Employee also appeals. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Facts and Proceedings Below
On June 5, 1995, Employee, while in the employment of Employer, sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, while both Employee and Employer were operating under the provisions of the Missouri Workers' Compensation Act (the Act). Specifically, Employee was loading an ATM machine into a truck, when he slipped in some oil, fell on his left side and heard a pop and felt pain in his left ankle. Employer had notice of the injury and a Claim for Compensation was timely filed. As of the date of the Commission's award, Employer had paid compensation to Employee in the amount of $92,288.70 covering the period of time from June 12, 1995 through February 28, 1999.
Both Employee and Employer submitted evidence and testimony of their respective expert witnesses at the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on the issues of Employer's liability for Employee's past medical expenses; future medical care; permanent partial or total disability; and costs. Among other evidence, Employee presented the testimony of his treating physician Dr. Brendan Morley, and Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor Timothy G. Lalk. Also among other evidence, Employer presented the testimony of Dr. Thomas Phillips, Dr. John Gragnani, and Rehabilitation Counselor/Vocational Expert Donna Abram, as well as surveillance videotapes and reports.
Standard of Review
There are two standards of review for awards from the Commission. There is a de novo standard for questions of law, which allows this Court to examine issues and make holdings as though it were the court of origin. Sutton v. Vee Jay Contracting Co., 37 S.W.3d 803, 807 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000). The standard for questions of fact, however, requires the reviewing court to examine the record and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the findings and award of the Commission to determine whether they are supported by competent and substantial evidence. Id. If so, the reviewing court must then determine whether the Commission's findings and award, even though supported by competent and substantial evidence, were nevertheless clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence contained in the whole record before the Commission. Id. In other words, the Commission's factual findings and resulting award should be set aside on appeal only if they are not supported by competent and substantial evidence or, even if supported by such evidence, if they are clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Id. Otherwise, we must affirm. Id.
In reviewing a workers' compensation award, we review the findings of the Commission and not those of the ALJ. Id. When, as here, the Commission affirms or adopts the findings of the ALJ, we review the decision and findings of the ALJ as adopted by the Commission. Id.
Points On Appeal
Employer presents three points on appeal. In his first point, Employer maintains that the Commission erred in finding that Employee is totally disabled, in that this finding is against the overwhelming weight of the substantial credible evidence i
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Missouri Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|