James Morris v. Captain D’s and Treasurer of The State of Missouri

No. SD 34835, 2018 WL 524804 (Mo. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2018)

Factual Background:

Employee sustained two work-related injuries in January 2007. The first was a MVA on 1/3 and the second was a slip and fall on 1/14. Employee had pre-existing injuries involving his right knee, back, and neck along with chest pain and high blood pressure due to heart disease. In January 2008 employee was evaluated by his expert, Dr. Volarich, who opined employee was PTD due to combination of work-related injuries and preexisting medical conditions and employee will require ongoing care for his pain syndrome. In January 2009, employee returned to his treating physician with complaints and ultimately underwent a cervical fusion. By May 2010 he had been rear-ended in two car collisions. Over the next year he treated for ongoing neck and back pain, requiring two surgeries in 2011. In December 2012, Dr. Volarich evaluated the employee again and found a causal connection between the January 2007 work injuries and his disability and required ongoing care. 

Commission Decision:

Employer appeals Commission decision awarding employee benefits. The Employer argues the award of future medical treatment for pain management is not supported by substantial and competent evidence in the record due to employee’s significant pre-existing and subsequent non-work related injuries.

Analysis/Holding:

The court found that Dr. Volarich consistently recommended ongoing care for employee’s pain syndromes associated with his neck and back related to his work injuries. Dr. Volarich recommended care in January 2008 and opined in 2012 and 2013 that the need for ongoing treatment was related to injuries to his neck and back from work.  Additionally, the fact that treatment for pain resulting from work-related injuries also treats pain related to non-work injuries is “of no consequence.” The Court of Appeals found Dr. Volarich’s testimony provided sufficient, competent, and substantial evidence to support the Commission’s award. Commission’s decision was affirmed.

The Takeaway:

This case exposes the Employer to increased liability for future medical care. If the claimant can establish a reasonable probability there is need for future treatment, the employer can be on the hook even if the treatment targets pre-existing or subsequent conditions.