WD81467 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018)
Code(s): C003 – SIF Liability; C026 – PTD
Factual
Background:
Claimant injured his right shoulder on
4/11/12 while working as a corrections officer. He was found to have sustained
30% PPD and assigned a 10-pound lifting restriction. He had prior injuries to his right wrist, right
elbow, and low back. Employee obtained an opinion by Dr. Hopkins who opined his
pre-existing injuries along with the right shoulder injury created an overall
greater disability and recommended various work restrictions. Dr. Hopkins did
not specifically state he was PTD.
Claimant underwent a vocational assessment and was found to be unable to
compete in the open labor market. Employer also provided a vocational report
indicating he was totally vocationally disabled. The Fund argues claimant is not entitled to
benefits because no physician certified his status pursuant to §287.190.6(2)
which states, PPD and PTD “shall be demonstrated and certified by a physician.”
Commission Decision:
Commission affirmed the ALJ’s findings
concluding 287.190.6(2)’s requirement to demonstrate and certify was satisfied.
It opined this section, “does not imply
or mandate any requirement that a medical expert… specifically address or
attempt to resolve the question whether the test for [PTD] under Chapter 287
has been satisfied.” Analyzing the
extent of disability requires weighing issues such as “job requirements and
availability, transferrable skills, and retraining prospects”… which in most
cases, “physicians do not possess the training, experiences, or access to
information” to make those conclusions.
Analysis/Holding:
The court relies on the Patterson case (425 S.W. 3d. 759 (Mo.
App. E.D. 2015)) and the established belief degree of disability is not solely
a medical question. The court clearly articulated it interprets the mandate of
§287.190.6(2) to require that a “physician show and attest as true the
employee’s medical condition and resulting work-related restrictions post
injury.” Then it is within the Commission’s purview to determine whether the
medical condition and physical limitations confirmed by the physician makes
employee employable. In sum, the Commission may consider the opinions of
multiple exerts of differing specialties to arrive at its determination of
claimant’s condition.
The Takeaway:
When determining whether a claimant is PTD, the Commission does not require an opinion from a physician specifically stating the employee is unable to perform any work. The Commission may rely on medical and non-medical experts to make the determination.