Missouri Workers Compensation Lawyer Blog

Under Missouri law, an employee must demonstrate that a workplace injury "[arose] out of and in the course of employment" to be eligible for workers' comp benefits. It might seem black and white: either you were injured on the job, or you weren't. However, a 2012 Missouri Supreme Court decision (Johme v. St. John's Mercy Healthcare) suggests that this issue could present complications to future claimants.

The employee & the injury
Sandy Johme worked as a billing representative at St. John's Mercy Healthcare at the time of her injury. The incident happened in an office kitchen that included a coffee station for all employees, and it was standard practice for the employee who took the last cup of coffee to make a fresh pot for others in the office. Johme was doing just that when she turned and stepped on the edge of her sandal, twisting her ankle and causing her foot to fall out of the shoe. She then fell backwards and landed on the floor.
Subsequently, Johme was transported to the emergency room by ambulance. where she complained of low back pain and left leg pain. An X-ray of her hips and pelvis revealed a fracture. While she did not have surgery to address the fracture, she was admitted to the hospital for pain management and physical therapy.

The claim
Johme filed a claim for workers' comp benefits, but after a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) denied her claim, ruling that Johme's activity - making coffee - did not fall within the scope of her workplace responsibilities. "[Johme] was not performing her [work] duties at the time of her fall at work," the ALJ wrote. "[She] just fell and she would have been exposed to the same hazard or risk in her normal [nonemployment] life."

Johme then appealed to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which reversed the ALJ's decision and awarded benefits to Johme. In its decision, the Commission specifically discussed personal comfort doctrine, which allows employees to collect benefits if they are injured while tending to basic human needs (such as hunger and thirst).

Further, the Commission reviewed the question of whether or not Johme's injury "arose out of and in the course of the worker's employment." Section 287.020.3(2) of Missouri workers' compensation law was amended in 2005 to read as follows:

"An injury shall be deemed to arise out of and in the course of the employment only if:

• (a) It is reasonably apparent, upon consideration of all the circumstances, that the accident is the prevailing factor in causing the injury; and

• (b) It does not come from a hazard or risk unrelated to the employment to which workers would have been equally exposed outside of and unrelated to the employment in normal nonemployment life."

In considering the issue, the Commission referenced a 2010 case, Pile v. Lake Regional Health System, which outlined a standard for applying Section 287.020.3(2):

"The first step is to determine whether the hazard or risk is related or unrelated to the employment...Only if the hazard or risk is unrelated to the employment does the second step of the analysis apply. In that event, it is necessary to determine whether the claimant is equally exposed to this hazard or risk in normal, non-employment life."

The Commission found that making coffee was in fact "incidental to and related to [Johme's] employment," and thus did not consider whether or not she would have been "equally exposed" to the circumstances that caused her injury outside of the workplace. Johme was awarded temporary total disability payments, permanent partial disability payments, and past medical expenses. St. John's then appealed the Commission's ruling, and the Missouri Supreme Court ultimately decided the issue.

Continue reading "Missouri workers must prove injuries arose "out of and in the course of employment" to collect workers' comp" »

Recently, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, upheld a decision awarding workers' compensation benefits to a Missouri employee injured in a workplace fall.

The claimant, Jason Pope, was injured while working as an entry-level technician for Gateway to the West Harley Davidson. Pope's on-the-job duties included inspecting, washing and test driving motorcycles. He was also responsible for driving motorcycles into interior showrooms for overnight storage.

On March 17, 2010, Pope had just finished moving motorcycles into an upper-level showroom and was descending a staircase when he fell and fractured his ankle. The injury required surgery followed by seven months of medical treatment and physical therapy. He was unable to work for a period of nine weeks, and he incurred nearly $21,000 in medical expenses.

Pope filed a workers' compensation claim, but it was initially denied. An administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled that Pope had not proven that his injury arose "out of and in the course of his employment," which is a requirement of Missouri workers' compensation law. Even though he was wearing his work boots and carrying his helmet when he fell, the ALJ determined that Pope would have been equally exposed to the same risk of injury in his non-employment life.

However, the Missouri Labor and Industrial Commission disagreed, overturning the ALJ's ruling and granting benefits to Pope. The Commission found that Pope's injury occurred while he was acting in the scope of his employment: i.e. walking down the stairs while wearing boots and carrying a helmet. Thus, there was a direct, causal connection between the injury and Pope's employment.

Gateway to the West Harley Davidson and its insurer, the Missouri Automobile Dealers Association Services Corporation, appealed the Commission's decision. The appeal cited two recent decisions made by the Missouri Supreme Court:

• Johme vs. St. John's Mercy Healthcare. The Supreme Court denied workers' comp benefits to a St. John's employee after she tripped on her shoe and fell, fracturing her hip and pelvis, while making coffee in a workplace kitchen.

• Miller vs. Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission. The Court denied benefits to a road construction worker who suffered a knee injury as he walked briskly to his truck.

However, the Court of Appeals denied the appeal, affirming the Commission's decision to award Pope benefits. The Court noted a key difference between Pope's claim and the claims involving Johme and Miller: "Because the service department was on the first floor, Pope was required to descend the staircase connecting the upper and lower showrooms," the ruling said. "Pope was wearing his work boots and carrying his work-required helmet as he descended the stairs. Unlike Miller and Johme, these facts support a finding that Pope was injured because he was at work, not simply while he was at work."

Continue reading "Missouri Court of Appeals affirms award to employee injured in workplace fall" »

An Oklahoma appeals panel has upheld a ruling that awarded workers' compensation benefits to a state representative who was injured in a car crash. According to The Oklahoman, the panel determined that Rep. Mike Christian is entitled to benefits for his injuries, but reduced the award from $61,560 to $51,300.

In 2009, Christian was involved in a collision with a truck as he commuted to the State Capitol in a private vehicle. The incident left him with injuries to his neck and spine, but more than a year passed before he filed a workers' comp claim for the accident.

Ordinarily, Oklahoma employees - like Missouri employees - are unable to collect workers' comp benefits for injuries they sustain when commuting to and from work. However, Oklahoma state law identifies a few exceptions - including, notably, when an employer reimburses an employee for travel costs. Oklahoma legislators are entitled to travel expenses for one round trip to the Capitol per week, so Christian maintained that that exception applied to him, even though he waived reimbursement.

Lawyers for the state's insurance company, Comp Source Oklahoma, argued that Christian was not on the job at the time of the accident, and he was therefore ineligible for workers' comp benefits. In court, they pointed out that Christian's wife was in the vehicle with him at the time of the crash. "Because claimant was commuting with his wife, who was to continue on to her place of employment in their personal vehicle, he could not have claimed mileage for the trip even if he had not waived his right since the trip did not serve a public purpose," attorney Kristi Bynum Russell said at the hearing.

In July, a trial judge agreed with Christian, finding that the accident caused an 18% permanent partial disability to Christian's cervical spine and an 18% permanent partial disability to his lumbar spine. The judge ordered Comp Source Oklahoma to pay Christian $342.00 every week for 180 weeks, for a total award of $61,560.

On Friday, an appeals panel comprised of three judges upheld the award. The ruling did not include a comment on the decision itself, or on the panel's reduction of the award amount. Comp Source Oklahoma is expected to continue the appeals process to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Continue reading "OK appeals panel upholds decision granting workers' comp benefits to state representative" »

A California appeals court has ruled that the state is not liable for a crash caused by a state employee who was driving to work after a medical appointment for a work-related injury.

The case involved Linda Gadbois, who was a cook employed by the California prison system. In April 2008, she was injured on the job at Avenal State Prison (AVP) and sought medical treatment through the prison's workers' compensation network. However, Gadbois was not happy with her original doctor, so she selected a different provider from a list supplied by AVP. On the morning of May 28, 2008, Gadbois was scheduled to work, but she was authorized to take time off to attend an appointment with her new doctor. After the appointment, she called AVP and told her supervisor she was on her way to work. She died in a fatal car crash soon afterward.

Kenneth Fields, the other driver involved, was seriously injured in the collision. Ultimately, Fields filed a personal injury lawsuit against Gadbois's estate and the state of California. The suit argued that Gadbois was "acting within the scope of her employment" when she caused the crash, and thus the state was also liable for his injuries. This kind of argument is known as respondeat superior, which is a common-law doctrine "that holds an employer or principal legally responsible for the wrongful acts of an employee or agent, if such acts occur within the scope of the employment or agency."

Normally, employees are normally considered outside the scope of their employment when they're commuting to or from work: thus, injuries sustained during these commutes this concept is known as the "coming and going rule." But Fields' argued that Gadbois, in driving to work from a medical appointment for a work-related injury, was actually acting within the scope of her employment.

However, the appeals court disagreed. After reviewing the case, the court concluded that Gadbois's employer was not liable for Fields' injuries. The ruling points out that Gadbois requested the appointment of her own accord; that AVP did not require her to drive to the appointment; and that driving was not connected to her regular job duties.

Here in Missouri, an employee must prove that an injury "[arose] out of and in the course of employment" to receive workers' comp benefits. In 2005, section 287.020.3(2) of Missouri law was amended to read as follows:

"An injury shall be deemed to arise out of and in the course of the employment only if:

• (a) It is reasonably apparent, upon consideration of all the circumstances, that the accident is the prevailing factor in causing the injury; and

• (b) It does not come from a hazard or risk unrelated to the employment to which workers would have been equally exposed outside of and unrelated to the employment in normal nonemployment life."

Continue reading "Missouri workplace injuries must arise "out of and in the course of employment" to be compensable" »

Most Missouri workers' compensation claims are connected to workplace accidents that cause physical injuries, or to occupational diseases caused by workplace environments. However, there is another separate category of injury that can pose a threat to employees: that of mental or psychological injuries.

You might be surprised to hear that the American Psychological Association ranks mental injuries "among the top ten work-related injuries and illnesses in the nation," and are rapidly on the rise. They offer various theories as to why this might be so.

• Society as a whole has become more educated about mental illnesses and their effects on an individual's health. This increased knowledge has led to heightened awareness of job-related stress disorders that can manifest as mental illnesses.

• Similarly, more employers now understand that mental health directly contributes to productivity. Several states have adjusted their workers' compensation statutes to allow employees to collect benefits for job-related mental health issues.

• A large percentage of today's jobs require more mental than physical effort, increasing the possibility of developing a mental injury.

• Given concerns about the economy and current unemployment rates, the nature of today's workplace is more competitive, fast-paced and stressful than it has ever been. When employees suffer psychological injuries at work, those injuries are often connected to stress.

Here are a couple of real-life examples of mental injuries sustained in the workplace:

• On August 4, 2001, a bank teller in Canton, Ohio was robbed at gunpoint. She was unable to return to her job, and she was subsequently diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). But here's the catch: unlike a broken bone, torn retina or mesothelioma, mental injuries are much harder to prove in court, and thus much harder to win a claim for. In this case, the teller was actually denied benefits because there was no corresponding physical injury, not even a minor one, which was a requirement of Ohio law at that time. She took her claim all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court, but lost.

• In 2010, a Missouri mental health care worker was awarded permanent and total disability benefits for a mental injury sustained at work. The worker has been diagnosed with PTSD after traveling to New York to assist postal workers following the September 11 attack on the Twin Towers. He reported difficulty concentrating, anxiety and nightmares, but he initially returned to work. However, within a year, his condition escalated: after threatening to shoot his coworkers, he was also diagnosed with major affective disorder, and he was never able to return to his job. The Workers' Comp Commission affirmed the award of benefits from the Second Injury Fund.

Continue reading "Missouri employees & mental injuries: Your rights under the law" »

The summer months bring increased business to beauty salons across the United States. Summertime reigns as the busiest season for nail technicians in the U.S., with more than 375,000 people working in salons daily. However, many of these workers are not aware of the hazardous chemicals they are exposed to every day and the health risks they pose. Chemicals from nail polishes, glues, removers, and salon products can be detrimental to technicians' health. Without taking certain safety steps, nail technicians could face long term health risks from workplace exposure.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) provides a list of hazardous chemicals commonly used in nail salons, which notes that employees are exposed to many chemicals, including methacrylic acids and acetates. Chemicals present in salons pose potent hazards and when mixed together, they can become even more dangerous. Employers must work to prevent chemical exposure by properly ventilating the salon and keeping potential dust or chemicals away from breathing zones. Employers can remove dangerous chemicals from breathing zones by using fans and other technologies that provide air circulation. The good news is that workplace illnesses connected to nail salons are largely preventable, provided the appropriate safety precautions are taken.

Also, nail salon owners are urged to reduce usage of products that contain certain hazardous chemicals, and seek out products that are acid free and "3-free" (those made without the "toxic trio": toluene, formaldehyde, and dibutyl phthalate). Reducing the number of chemicals present in the salon automatically decreases the risk of exposure. Another way to protect employees from overexposure is to diligently schedule breaks and allow appropriate time off from all types of chemical exposure. Lastly, always handle chemicals with care. Remember to keep bottles tightly sealed when not in use, and properly dispose of all chemicals.

Chemical overexposure can cause serious health-related consequences for nail technicians. Some studies have linked musculoskeletal disorders, skin problems, respiratory irritation, and headaches to work-related chemical exposure in nail salons. There are more than 10,000 nail products regularly used that do not have EPA safety approval, so the risks of future health problems are high.

Continue reading "Nail salons and chemical overexposure: The risks facing Missouri workers" »

On Tuesday afternoon, the Missouri General Assembly passed a bill that will prohibit employees from suing their co-workers for on-the-job injuries. The legislation would only allow employees to sue co-workers when "the accident was the result of gross negligence or an intentional act of harm," says the Springfield News-Leader. The bill was passed in the Missouri House by a vote of 122 - 29, and the Senate unanimously approved it within the same day. Now, it awaits Governor Nixon's approval.

However, the bill does not address two pressing issues that directly affect the Missouri workers' compensation system: (1) the struggling Second Injury Fund; and (2) the process for treating deadly work-related diseases. It appears that these issues will not be addressed until next year.

Earlier this year, Governor Nixon vetoed legislation that addressed all three subjects. In his veto letter, Nixon said his primary concern is connected to occupational diseases, and his worry that the workers' compensation system cannot "adequately compensate workers for debilitating diseases that will eventually take their lives, and [that] such cases should be handled by civil courts, as they now are," according to Columbia Daily Tribune. Occupational diseases are chronic ailments contracted through the workplace, such as mesothelioma and lead poisoning.

After vetoing the proposed bill, however, Nixon sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Tom Dempsey and Minority Leader Victor Callahan. In the letter, Nixon agreed to sign new workers' comp legislation, provided that those who suffer from occupational diseases would be awarded "enhanced benefits" - meaning they would receive larger weekly payments than injured workers.

In response, Dempsey reportedly proposed that those workers be paid 200% of the state's average weekly wage for 200 weeks, which would equate to a settlement around $300,000. Nixon's offer, according to Dempsey, would have paid closer to $700,000 to employees who suffer from occupational diseases. "The governor's number was too high, so there you are," Dempsey said. Since a compromise couldn't be reached, it's likely that the issue will have to wait until the next legislative session.

Continue reading "Bill Preventing Co-Worker Lawsuits Passes Missouri General Assembly: Occupational Diseases & Second Injury Fund Left in Limbo" »

Jamie Duncan, former linebacker for the St. Louis Rams, has filed a lawsuit in City Court against his former attorney, Mark L. Floyd of the Floyd Law Firm. The lawsuit is connected to a Missouri workers' compensation claim filed on Duncan's behalf: 5 years ago, Duncan alleges, Floyd advised him to sign a $1,000 settlement that included a waiver for any future medical benefits. Duncan's complaint argues that doing so ultimately cost him $255,000, reports the Courthouse News Service.

In 2007, when Duncan's initial claim was made, the Rams had offices in both St. Louis and Los Angeles, and Duncan's settlement was filed in the Missouri Division of Workers' Compensation. In the years that followed, Duncan sought to collect benefits on new claims for cumulative orthopedic and closed head trauma. In that pursuit, he was represented by California attorney Ron Mix.

By March of 2011, the complaint says, "Mix had negotiated a tentative settlement wherein the St. Louis Rams would settle all pending workers' compensation claims of Jamie Duncan, plus a buy-out of future medical benefits for the sum of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000)."

Then, in May 2011, the Rams contacted Mix to inform him that Duncan had waived all future medical claims by agreeing to the Missouri settlement in 2007. Thus, the Rams "declined to offer any compensation to the plaintiff," the complaint continues. Mix was eventually able to settle Duncan's California claims for $45,000: since the Rams organization initially offered $300,000, Duncan is suing to recover the difference.

Continue reading "Former St. Louis Rams Linebacker Files Lawsuit Connected to Missouri Workers' Compensation Claim" »

Between treatment, rehabilitation and medication costs, recovering from a workplace injury can become very expensive very quickly. In particular, the expense associated with certain prescription drugs cost the workers' compensation system billions of dollars in wasted pharmacy-related funds last year, according to the 2011 Express Scripts Workers' Compensation Drug Trend Report.

The report indicates that the use of expensive medication (instead of lower-costing, therapeutically equivalent drugs) accounted for approximately $2.1 billion in wasted funds. In addition, the workers' comp industry saw $107 million wasted due to the use of out-of-network pharmacies and third party billing; and $40 million wasted through the use of "higher-cost" delivery channels (like retail pharmacies) for long-term medication.

• 76.2% of total drug spending in 2011 was associated with the top six "therapy classes," which include narcotic analgesics, anticonvulsants, anti-inflammatory drugs, and dermatological medication.

• Narcotic analgesics have the highest annual cost per user ($508). This therapy class also accounts for approximately 38% of total drug spending and 34% of total utilization.

• 10% of total drug spending in 2011 was associated with the powerful painkiller Oxycontin. This drug also had the highest cost per user.

• The biggest spike in costs was associated with dermatological medication, which rose 7.4% in 2011.

According to Express Scripts' official press release,

"Behaviors such as habit or lack of awareness can lead some physicians to continue to choose branded medications over more clinically equivalent, lower-cost generic alternatives. Injured workers may also request the more expensive medication. These behaviors drive up the cost of the workers' compensation pharmacy benefit."

The report also indicates that about 125 million U.S. employees are currently eligible for workers' compensation coverage. Approximately 4.2 million of these employees suffer work-related injuries and illnesses every year.

Continue reading "High-Priced Prescription Drugs Contribute $2.1 Billion to Workers' Compensation Costs in Missouri & Nationwide" »

It has come to our attention that sometimes injured workers in Springfield, Missouri don't apply for the benefits they are entitled to under Missouri's Workers' Compensation Act because they are afraid their employer will retaliate against them. Unfortunately, this fear is not unfounded. It is not easy for an employer to get away with retaliatory discharge - meaning firing the worker after he or she reports a work-related injury, which does happen occasionally. However, there are many other types of retaliation that are much more common and not nearly as easy to prove.

Retaliation against a worker for filing a workers' compensation claim is illegal in Springfield and anywhere else in Missouri, but it still happens. The Missouri Workers' Compensation Law, section 287.780, clearly states: "No employer or agent shall discharge or in any way discriminate against any employee for exercising any of his rights under this chapter." It goes on to explain that any worker who has been either fired or retaliated against in any way has grounds for a lawsuit against his employer.

Obviously, this does not guarantee that a worker will keep his or her job. If, after finishing all available medical treatment for your injuries, you are still unable to perform your job, your employer is not required to keep you on staff (or even try to find you another position). And it's possible that you could be terminated for other reasons, having nothing to do with your workers' comp claim.

Employer or manager retaliation may show up in any of the following types of discrimination or harassment:

• Unwarranted poor performance review
• Scheduling issues
• Isolation or intimidation
• Demotion, reassignment, reclassification or transfer
• Threatened adverse wage action
• Interference with or dispute of a legitimate workers' compensation claim
• Unreasonable increase or decrease in job duties
• Unjustified disciplinary action

Continue reading "Employer Retaliation in Springfield, Missouri Workers' Compensation Cases" »

In this post, the Missouri workers' compensation attorneys would like to discuss a recent decision of the Missouri Court of Appeals. In Rader vs. Werner Enterprises, No. ED95905, ---S.W.3d --- (Mo.App.E.D. 2012), an injured over the road truck driver sought permanent total disability benefits, along with compensation for future medical care, and ultimately prevailed.

Timothy Rader had worked as a truck driver for 6-8 years for the same company, Werner Enterprises. In May of 2003, he sustained a head injury as he unloaded a truck at Anheuser-Busch in St. Louis: a partially empty keg rolled out of the truck and struck him.

Rader was taken to the ER, where he reported pain and numbness in various parts of his body, and he couldn't remember if he had lost consciousness. Over the next several months, Rader continued to experience severe pain (particularly in his back and knees), along with various other symptoms. He received extensive medical treatment and was unable to work.

The Claim:
Rader filed a workers' compensation claim in May of 2005. After a hearing, where an Administrative Law Judge heard testimony from Rader and several experts, Rader was awarded permanent total disability benefits and future medical care expenses. Werner then filed for a review with the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, but the Commission upheld the award. Ultimately, Werner appealed to the Eastern District Court of Appeals.

The Appeal:
Werner disputed the Commission's ruling, appealing six points:

1. Under the terms of Rader's revised employee agreement, Werner argued, Rader was only allowed to seek workers' comp benefits in Nebraska, where Werner's corporate office is located, and where an alleged employment agreement provides for jurisdiction. Their stance was that the Missouri court did not have jurisdiction over the claim, even though the accident happened in St. Louis.

2.Werner also claimed that Rader was not eligible for workers' compensation benefits because he was an owner-operator and not an employee. In February 2003, Rader had entered into a new employment agreement with Werner, which changed his job title to "independent contractor": he purchased a truck from Werner, began paying his own expenses, and received a larger pay rate.

3. Before he worked for Werner, Rader had suffered previous injuries to his knees and back. Werner contended that the May 2003 accident was not the cause of Rader's present disability, and that Rader instead had a preexisting degenerative condition.

4. Werner disputed the award for future medical care, maintaining that Rader's May 2003 injury did not necessitate future treatment.

5. The company contended that Rader was in fact capable of returning to work, and disputed the award for permanent total disability.

6. Finally, Werner contested the amount of the award, based on Rader's average weekly wages.

Continue reading "Employee Classification, Location Among Factors Affecting Missouri Workers' Compensation Awards" »

According to Missouri's Workers' Compensation Law, your employer has the right to choose the injured employee's health care provider. Most employers will then delegate that responsibility to their insurance carrier. However, this does not mean that an injured worker's medical care is in under the control of the insurance company. Medical treatment is always under the control of the treating physician selected by the employer or insurer. Problems can arise, however, because insurance companies are responsible for authorizing and directing care--which means that there are situations where reasonable care is not provided.

What if the injured employee disagrees with the diagnosis, or is unhappy with the health provider chosen for him/her?

Missouri law allows employees to select their own doctor, surgeon, or other medical provider, but the employee must pay for that treatment themselves. This happens infrequently, because of the high cost of medical treatment. Even if the injured party has medical insurance, many policies will not cover an injury sustained in the work[lace.

Sometimes it might be necessary to travel to see a physician: for example, when an injured worker needs a specialist, and there are none in the immediate area; or when an accident happens in a small town or rural location, without access to the medical services needed. If you are required to travel outside the local metropolitan area of the employer's location, then the employer is required to pay your travel costs: these are considered necessary and reasonable expenses. If you cannot travel, or believe that the travel is making your condition worse, speak to your employer/insurer about the situation. If nothing satisfactory can be worked out, at this point you can request a conference with an administrative law judge (ALJ) to discuss the situation. It might also be helpful to consult a Missouri Workers' Compensation Attorney.

If an injured worker is unhappy with the medical treatment he is receiving, or believes he needs a specialist, more tests, or a different type of treatment, these situations need to be handled carefully. First, discuss the issue with the insurance company. If this approach doesn't provide a solution, a workers' comp attorney can formally dispute the employer's treatment plan. On the other hand, if the insurer or employer disagrees with a doctor's diagnosis, they then have the qualified right to authorize a change of physician.

Continue reading "Managing Medical Treatment Issues as a Missouri Workers' Compensation Claimant" »

Springfield, Missouri workers' compensation lawyers believe that construction injury claims can be very different than other types of injury claims. It is not news to anyone that the construction industry can be extremely hazardous for its workers. Handling heavy machinery, power tools, great heights, and heavy weights makes construction jobs more dangerous than other types of employment.

According to David Michaels, OSHA Assistant Secretary, "Every day in this country, more than 14 workers lose their lives in preventable workplace tragedies -- close to 100 deaths every week."

OSHA has a list of safety requirements for all construction sites. Read the Safety and Health Regulations for Construction. Most Missouri employers comply with these requirements; however, despite all precautions and good intentions, serious accidents still happen. Some of the main injuries suffered by construction workers include the following:

*falls
*fractures and broken bones
*burns and electrocutions
*machinery accidents
*hit by falling objects
*accidental amputations
*exposure to toxic materials, such as silica or asbestos

A common scenario in construction accidents is a separate third party claim, along with the workers' compensation claim. Missouri employers are required to pay the medical bills for any worker injured in a job related accident, but there can also be liability to someone else. For example, a defect in the design or manufacture of the machinery or tools being can cause an injury accident, or another party's negligence can play a role. These kinds of third party claims must be prosecuted with civil lawsuits though the Missouri court system; not through the Division of Workers' Compensation.

Continue reading "Springfield, Missouri Construction Accidents Can Involve a Third Party Claim In Addition to a Workers' Comp Claim" »

The Greene County workers' compensation attorneys know that certain factors can complicate workers' comp claims. That's why it's so important to have a lawyer advising you throughout the process. Consider a recent case:

The claimant, Jeffrey Graham, worked as a tractor trailer driver for TSL, Ltd., hauling automobiles. Graham's application for workers' compensation benefits alleged that he fell and injured his right foot while unloading a Jeep in New Jersey on January 25, 2008.

The situation would seem pretty black and white. However, the nature of Graham's hiring became an important element of the case. Here's a bit of background:

Graham, a Kentucky resident, was hired "over the phone": he learned TSL was hiring truck drivers, and phoned the company's Missouri office seeking employment. At TSL's request, he faxed his commercial driver's license, a copy of his personnel file from his previous employer, and the results of a recent physical, including a drug test, to Jim Gage at TSL's Missouri office. Gage apparently reviewed the information while the two men were on the phone and told Graham that he could "start tomorrow." Graham considered himself hired at that point.

So Graham traveled from Kentucky to TSL's office in St. Peters, Missouri. He completed TSL's mandatory driving test and training program, and submitted to another drug test. TSL then provided the tractor trailer, and Graham got to work.

After his injury occurred, Graham applied for workers' compensation benefits in Kentucky, where he lives and where he applied for and received the job. But TSL denied the claim, insisting Kentucky lacked extraterritorial jurisdiction under KRS 342.670 because the employment was not principally localized in any state, and Graham's contract for hire was made in not in Kentucky, but in Missouri.

Continue reading "Where Do You Apply for Workers' Comp Benefits if Your Employment is Not Localized to Any Particular State?" »

What is the relationship between a pre-existing condition such as obesity and an injured workers' right to obtain full compensation for his work-related injury? This is a question that has started to come up more frequently for Springfield, MO Workers Compensation lawyers. The reason: obesity has reached epidemic proportions here in Springfield MO and throughout the rest of the nation. Being obese can seriously complicate or hinder the medical treatment a worker needs to recover after an injury. It can also cause an employer to claim that the obesity was the cause of the injury, and try to dispute a rightful claim.

Two recent reports outline the issues. The first, done in 2010 by Duke University, found a significant link between obesity and the cost of workers compensation. Obese employees were found to file double the number of workers' compensation claims as average weight employees. They also reported a whopping seven times higher medical costs from those claims, as well as 13 times more missed days of work.

There are various problems for injured, obese workers. They are more likely to have pre-existing health conditions that exacerbate their injuries, such as heart disease, hypertension and diabetes. Any of these can significantly impact the treatment of a workers compensation claim, causing costs to skyrocket. If an injured worker suffers from any of these diseases, his recovery from a work injury or illness will likely be much slower and more complicated.

A recent Gallup poll sheds even more light on this situation, with the startling statistic that overweight or obese workers miss 450 million more work days annually than their normal-weight, healthy counterparts.

Releasing the results of their poll, Gallup commented, "The high percentages of full-time U.S. workers who have less-than-ideal health are a significant drain on productivity for U.S. businesses. However, employees and employers have the opportunity to potentially increase productivity if they address the health issues that are currently plaguing the workplace."

Continue reading "Obesity a "Big" Issue in Springfield Missouri Workers' Compensation Claims" »