The materials below are provided solely for the interest and convenience of the reader, are not official Court records, and should not be quoted or cited as such. Once cases are docketed, the briefs filed by the parties typically are posted within a day or so. Summaries of the cases are prepared by the Court’s communications counsel and typically are posted the week before arguments. Audio files and information about attorneys who argued typically are posted within a day or so after arguments. Further information about the cases may be available through Case.net.
DOCKET SUMMARIES
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
9 a.m. Tuesday, February 11, 2020
SC98168
Lucille Schoen v. Mid-Missouri Mental Health Center and Treasurer of the State of Missouri - Custodian of the Second Injury Fund
Boone County
Availability of workers’ compensation and second injury fund benefits
Listen to the oral argument: SC98168 MP3 file
Schoen was represented during arguments by Truman E. Allen of Allen, Nelson & Wilson in Columbia; the mental health center was represented by Eric Doner of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
Lucille Schoen developed respiratory symptoms after being exposed to ant spray while working as a charge nurse at Mid-Missouri Mental Health Center. Two weeks later, while at a doctor’s office for further evaluation, a doctor accidentally tripped Schoen, causing her to sustain orthopedic injuries to her knees, hips, lower back and neck. The doctor evaluated Schoen’s respiratory symptoms, opined she would have no permanent disability as a result of the chemical exposure and released her to regular duty with no work restrictions. Two other doctors concluded Schoen’s respiratory symptoms may be related to allergies or asthma but were not chronic, permanent or related to her chemical exposure. A fourth doctor related Schoen’s continued respiratory symptoms to her chemical exposure and concluded she had a 5-percent permanent partial disability of the body as a whole. She ultimately filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits for her respiratory injury and for second injury fund benefits for her orthopedic injuries. An administrative law judge awarded her lifetime weekly benefits for her orthopedic injuries, finding her fall was a natural and probable consequence of the chemical exposure injury. The mental health center appealed to the labor and industrial relations commission, which reversed the award. The commission found Schoen’s orthopedic injuries did not result from her receiving medical care for a work-related injury and did not aggravate her original respiratory injury; the fall and orthopedic injuries did not result from a risk inherent in her employment; and the second injury fund had no liability because Schoen did not have any permanent partial disability as a result of the chemical exposure. Schoen appeals.
This appeal presents several questions for this Court. One involves whether the evidence establishes Schoen’s orthopedic injuries are eligible for second injury fund benefits because they occurred as a consequence of her receiving medical treatment for her original chemical injury. Other questions include whether injuries must arise from an inherently work-related risk source to be compensable, what constitute “natural consequences” under the workers’ compensation law and the extent to which her fall was related to the treatment of her respiratory injuries. A further question involves whether Schoen sustained permanent disability from her chemical exposure, her orthopedic injuries or both.
SC98168_Schoen_brief
SC98168_Mid-MO_Mental_Health_Center_brief
Lucille Schoen v. Mid-Missouri Mental Health Center and Treasurer of the State of Missouri - Custodian of the Second Injury Fund
Boone County
Availability of workers’ compensation and second injury fund benefits
Listen to the oral argument: SC98168 MP3 file
Schoen was represented during arguments by Truman E. Allen of Allen, Nelson & Wilson in Columbia; the mental health center was represented by Eric Doner of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
Lucille Schoen developed respiratory symptoms after being exposed to ant spray while working as a charge nurse at Mid-Missouri Mental Health Center. Two weeks later, while at a doctor’s office for further evaluation, a doctor accidentally tripped Schoen, causing her to sustain orthopedic injuries to her knees, hips, lower back and neck. The doctor evaluated Schoen’s respiratory symptoms, opined she would have no permanent disability as a result of the chemical exposure and released her to regular duty with no work restrictions. Two other doctors concluded Schoen’s respiratory symptoms may be related to allergies or asthma but were not chronic, permanent or related to her chemical exposure. A fourth doctor related Schoen’s continued respiratory symptoms to her chemical exposure and concluded she had a 5-percent permanent partial disability of the body as a whole. She ultimately filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits for her respiratory injury and for second injury fund benefits for her orthopedic injuries. An administrative law judge awarded her lifetime weekly benefits for her orthopedic injuries, finding her fall was a natural and probable consequence of the chemical exposure injury. The mental health center appealed to the labor and industrial relations commission, which reversed the award. The commission found Schoen’s orthopedic injuries did not result from her receiving medical care for a work-related injury and did not aggravate her original respiratory injury; the fall and orthopedic injuries did not result from a risk inherent in her employment; and the second injury fund had no liability because Schoen did not have any permanent partial disability as a result of the chemical exposure. Schoen appeals.
This appeal presents several questions for this Court. One involves whether the evidence establishes Schoen’s orthopedic injuries are eligible for second injury fund benefits because they occurred as a consequence of her receiving medical treatment for her original chemical injury. Other questions include whether injuries must arise from an inherently work-related risk source to be compensable, what constitute “natural consequences” under the workers’ compensation law and the extent to which her fall was related to the treatment of her respiratory injuries. A further question involves whether Schoen sustained permanent disability from her chemical exposure, her orthopedic injuries or both.
SC98168_Schoen_brief
SC98168_Mid-MO_Mental_Health_Center_brief
SC98168_Schoen_reply_brief
SC98122
Maral Annayeva v. SAB of the TSD of the City of St. Louis and Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund
St. Louis
Availability of workers’ compensation and second injury fund benefits
Listen to the oral argument: SC98122 MP3 file
Annayeva was represented during arguments by Dean L. Christianson of Schuchat, Cook & Werner in St. Louis. The special administrative board was represented by Matthew D. Leonard of Early & Miranda PC in St. Louis; the state was represented by Caroline Bean of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
Maral Annayeva sought workers’ compensation and second injury fund benefits, alleging she was injured as a result of an accident at Roosevelt High School, where the St. Louis transitional school district’s special administrative board employed her as a teacher. She alleged the school’s lot where she parked was covered with salt, ice and dirt and she slipped and fell on the floor inside the building. At the time, she said she was unsure what caused the fall but later said the linoleum floor inside the building was dirty and moist and there was no mat on which to wipe her feet. She complained of dizziness and pain and was taken to an emergency room. She alleged continued pain prohibited her from performing her job. She eventually stopped working due to continued pain. After further medical care through the workers’ compensation system was denied, she sought medical care on her own. She alleges she continues to experience constant pain, exacerbated by activity and weather changes. She alleges she also has depression, anxiety, dizziness, nausea and other medical issues. Various doctors and other experts who testified disagreed about the nature and cause of Annayeva’s injuries as well as the extent and duration of any resulting disability. Two doctors diagnosed her with somatic symptom disorder, explaining the disorder causes a patient to experience pain and other physical symptoms in the absence of or in excess of findings from physical examination or diagnostic testing. One doctor found the work accident was the prevailing factor in Annayeva’s disorder; the other opined it was not. The administrative law judge denied benefits, finding Annayeva failed to prove the accident was the prevailing factor in causing her physiological or psychological complaints. She appealed to the labor and industrial relations commission, which affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision. Annayeva appeals.
This appeal presents several questions for this Court. Most questions involve whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Annayeva’s accident and injuries arose out of or in the course and scope of her employment and, if so, whether her injuries are compensable. Related issues include whether she was required to identify the accident’s specific cause, whether such a determination is based on the location of the injury or the risk source of the injury, whether the work-related risk exposure was the same as any non-work risk exposure, and the extent to which the commission must rely on the doctors’ opinions as to the cause of her symptoms or her testimony about the condition of the floor where she fell. Another question involves whether the evidence was sufficient to establish a medical causal connection between Annayeva’s accident and her injuries. A related issue includes whether doctors agreed her subjective complaints are an expected manifestation of her somatic symptom disorder and not a result of malingering.
SC98122_Annayeva_brief
SC98122_Special_Administrative_Board_of_St._Louis_Transitional_School_District_brief
SC98122_State_brief
SC98122
Maral Annayeva v. SAB of the TSD of the City of St. Louis and Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund
St. Louis
Availability of workers’ compensation and second injury fund benefits
Listen to the oral argument: SC98122 MP3 file
Annayeva was represented during arguments by Dean L. Christianson of Schuchat, Cook & Werner in St. Louis. The special administrative board was represented by Matthew D. Leonard of Early & Miranda PC in St. Louis; the state was represented by Caroline Bean of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
Maral Annayeva sought workers’ compensation and second injury fund benefits, alleging she was injured as a result of an accident at Roosevelt High School, where the St. Louis transitional school district’s special administrative board employed her as a teacher. She alleged the school’s lot where she parked was covered with salt, ice and dirt and she slipped and fell on the floor inside the building. At the time, she said she was unsure what caused the fall but later said the linoleum floor inside the building was dirty and moist and there was no mat on which to wipe her feet. She complained of dizziness and pain and was taken to an emergency room. She alleged continued pain prohibited her from performing her job. She eventually stopped working due to continued pain. After further medical care through the workers’ compensation system was denied, she sought medical care on her own. She alleges she continues to experience constant pain, exacerbated by activity and weather changes. She alleges she also has depression, anxiety, dizziness, nausea and other medical issues. Various doctors and other experts who testified disagreed about the nature and cause of Annayeva’s injuries as well as the extent and duration of any resulting disability. Two doctors diagnosed her with somatic symptom disorder, explaining the disorder causes a patient to experience pain and other physical symptoms in the absence of or in excess of findings from physical examination or diagnostic testing. One doctor found the work accident was the prevailing factor in Annayeva’s disorder; the other opined it was not. The administrative law judge denied benefits, finding Annayeva failed to prove the accident was the prevailing factor in causing her physiological or psychological complaints. She appealed to the labor and industrial relations commission, which affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision. Annayeva appeals.
This appeal presents several questions for this Court. Most questions involve whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Annayeva’s accident and injuries arose out of or in the course and scope of her employment and, if so, whether her injuries are compensable. Related issues include whether she was required to identify the accident’s specific cause, whether such a determination is based on the location of the injury or the risk source of the injury, whether the work-related risk exposure was the same as any non-work risk exposure, and the extent to which the commission must rely on the doctors’ opinions as to the cause of her symptoms or her testimony about the condition of the floor where she fell. Another question involves whether the evidence was sufficient to establish a medical causal connection between Annayeva’s accident and her injuries. A related issue includes whether doctors agreed her subjective complaints are an expected manifestation of her somatic symptom disorder and not a result of malingering.
SC98122_Annayeva_brief
SC98122_Special_Administrative_Board_of_St._Louis_Transitional_School_District_brief
SC98122_State_brief