office-3

Lamont Cooper v. Mid-Missouri Mental Health Center

2018 WL 1089728 (Mo.Lab.Ind.Rel.Com.)
Full Opinion: [
Lamont Cooper v. Mid-Missouri Mental Health Center]
Code(s): Medical Causation, C003; Safety Violation/Penalty, C011; Occupational Disease, C038

 

Factual Background:

Employee claimed an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment by way of exposure to dust containing biological particles that gave rise to a diagnosis of hypersensitivity pneumonitis.  Claimant worked as a janitor for Mid-Missouri Mental Health Center.  As a part of his duties during July to September 2007, he cleaned large amounts of dust throughout the first and second floors of the mental health center during two construction projects. The first project was for the removal of asbestos contaminated material, and the second was to repair parts of the building’s sewer system.  Subsequent to the exposure, the claimant developed red eyes, cough, and fatigue.  He was ultimately diagnosed with hypersensitivity pneumonitis, which was treated with prednisone.  Prolonged use of prednisone led to significant health issues including eye problems, fatigue, diabetes, and avascular necrosis of the left hip.  

ALJ Decision:

Employer appeals the ALJ decision awarding employee benefits, specifically the ALJ’s finding of a 15% penalty for violations of §§ 287.120.4, 292.300, and 292.320 RSMo. Employer argues the award of said penalty is not supported by substantial and competent evidence due to the employee’s failure to provide evidence demonstrating the existence of approved and effective devises, means or methods for the prevention of the employee’s injury, nor was there evidence presented that the employer’s failure to provide such caused Mr. Cooper’s injury.

 

Analysis/Holding:

The Commission determined the ALJ’s award of a 15% penalty for failure to comply with §§ 287.120.4, 292.300, and 292.320 RSMo. was unsupported by law.  Specifically the Commission noted that the ALJ used circular reasoning in its award of the 15% penalty.  In its opinion, the trial court determined that, as the Employer failed to provide protective clothing, it could be assumed that, had said protective clothing been provided, the occupational disease would not have occurred.  However, the Commission noted a lack of evidence supporting the assumption that clothing/equipment exists that would have prevented the claimant’s hypersensitivity pneumonitis.  There existed no evidence at the final hearing level which would show that there exists technology to protect the employee from the risks of hypersensitivity pneumonitis and further no evidence of a causal link between the Employer’s failure to provide the clothing/equipment and the development of the occupational disease.  Finally, the Commission also noted that there was no evidence presented on the part of the Employee which would support a claim that the Employee’s hypersensitivity pneumonitis is “incident to [the] work, trade, or process,’ routinely engaged in by this employer, a mental health center.”

The Takeaway:

In cases where an occupational disease has been alleged and the employer has failed to provide protective clothing/equipment, an award of a 15% penalty pursuant to §§ 287.120.4, 292.300, and 292.320 RSMo. shall not be sustained unless the employee can demonstrate technology exists to prevent the occupational disease and that the specific occupational disease suffered by the employee is incident to the work, trade, or process, routinely engaged by the employer.

Having a Seminar?
Join our E-Mail List
to stay up to date with Evans & Dixon