Missouri's workers' compensation laws were initially designed to be the "exclusive remedy" for injured workers, meaning that if an employee was injured or made ill due to employment, the employee had go through the workers' compensation system to receive benefits, and could not sue the employer in civil court. However, changes made to the workers' compensation law in 2005 have resulted in several recent cases eroding workers' compensation exclusivity, and therefore opening up other possible avenues of compensation for injured Missouri workers. Columbia, Missouri workers' compensation lawyers have analyzed one recent case, and prepared the summary below.
State ex. rel. KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Co. v. Cook
In State ex. rel. KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Co. v. Cook, --- S.W.3d ----, 2011 WL 4031146 (Mo.App. W.D. 2011), the Missouri Court of Appeals determined that occupational disease claims are not subject to workers' compensation's exclusive remedy. Under the Cook decision, an employee with a work-related occupational disease may now choose between bringing a workers' compensation claim in administrative court, or filing a lawsuit for damages in civil court.
Background: Accidental Injuries v. Occupational Diseases
The Missouri workers' compensation system has long categorized work injuries as one of 2 general types: accidental injuries or occupational diseases. An injury by "accident" is defined by Missouri law as "an unexpected traumatic event or unusual strain identifiable by time and place of occurrence and producing at the time objective symptoms of an injury caused by a specific event during a single workshift." Section 287.020.2, RSMo. A classic example of an accidental injury would be torn rotator cuff sustained while an employee lifts an object in her employment. An injury by "occupational disease" is defined as "an identifiable disease arising with or without human fault out of and in the course of employment." Occupational disease claims include injuries due to exposure to harmful substances, such as asbestosis and mesothelioma, and repetitive or cumulative trauma injuries, such as carpal tunnel syndrome.
Facts of the Case
In Cook, the Plaintiff worked for KCP&L for 34 years, retiring in 1988. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2010, and thus filed a lawsuit for damages in civil court naming various asbestos manufacturers and his former employer as defendants. Ultimately all defendants were dismissed from the lawsuit by settlement or otherwise except KCP&L. For the claim against KCP&L, the Plaintiff alleged that KCP&L negligently exposed him to asbestos in the course of his employment. KCP&L moved for summary judgment based on an affirmative defense that such claim is exclusively the province of workers' compensation proceedings. The Plaintiff countered that pursuant to the 2005 amendments to the workers' compensation law, only claims deriving from injuries by accident are subject to work comp exclusivity and injuries by occupational disease such as this case may proceed in civil court. The trial judge found for the Plaintiff on this matter and KCP&L filed a Writ of Prohibition, appealing the matter the Western District Court of Appeals.
The Western District's Holding
The Court initially noted the distinction between injuries by accident and injuries by occupational disease. The Court looked to Section 287.120, RSMo, for the Defendant's argument of work comp exclusivity, but dismissed such argument based on the language of the statute. Specifically, 287.120, the exclusivity statute, only references personal injury or death due to an injury by accident, and does not address injury by occupational disease. Therefore, under the strict construction mandate of Section 287.800.1, the Court held that it could not extend exclusivity to occupational disease claims not referenced by the exclusivity provision. The Court rejected KCP&L's reliance on pre-2005 decisions extending exclusivity to occupational disease claims due to such cases being decided under the prior liberal construction regime, which was eliminated with 2005 tort reform. Two judges filed dissenting opinions.
The Impact of the Erosion of Exclusivity
Several other recent Missouri cases have reached decisions that have similarly eroded workers' comp as an exclusive remedy, including Robinson v. Hooker, 323 S.W.3d 418 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010), and a Missouri Supreme Court decision, Missouri Alliance for Retired Americans v. Department of Labor & Industrial Relations, 277 S.W.3d 670 (Mo. banc 2009). It appears an employee with an occupational disease claim may now choose between workers' compensation and circuit court as the initial forum. According to the Court, an employee has the "unqualified, unilateral right to select his or her own initial forum" in occupational disease claims. The relative advantages and disadvantages of either forum must be assessed on a case by case basis. Generally, circuit court likely will allow the lower causation standard of "proximate cause" while imposing the higher fault standard of negligence cases, while workers' compensation is a no fault system but requires workplace exposure to be the "prevailing factor" in the occupational disease.
It is expected that these court cases will have a growing impact on the entire workers' comp and civil court system in Missouri. The door has been opened for many more cases to bypass the workers' compensation system, and that door can only be closed now by a rewording of the law by Missouri's legislature.
If you suffer from an occupational disease, it might be wise to consult with a Missouri Workers' Compensation attorney to determine your best course of action. Call 1-888-777-Auto(2886).
Attorney meetings by appointment only
