314-631-6777

Can the employer fire an injured worker because they filed a workers’ compensation case?

Nothing under Missouri law prevents an employer from firing an injured work from their job. If an employee can not do the essential functions of the job, then an employer can and often times will fire the worker. However, if it can shown that the employer fired an injured worker because of their workers’ compensation case, then a civil action in circuit court for wrongful termination/discrimination may be appropriate.

In Missouri, an employer shall not discharge or discriminate against an employee because of the employee’s workers’ compensation case. The Missouri Workers’ Compensation Law specifically states in Section RSMo 287.780 that:

“No employer or agent shall discharge or discriminate against any employee for exercising any of his or her rights under this chapter when the exercising of such rights is the motivating factor in the discharge or discrimination. Any employee who has been discharged or discriminated against in such manner shall have a civil action for damages against his or her employer. For purposes of this section, “motivating factor” shall mean that the employee’s exercise of his or her rights under this chapter actually played a role in the discharge or discrimination and had a determinative influence on the discharge or discrimination.” https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=287.780

The Missouri courts have interpreted the law in the following cases:

“Generally, an employer can discharge an at-will employee for any reason. Keveney v. Missouri Military Acad., 304 S.W.3d 98, 101 (Mo. banc 2010). There are exceptions and limits, however, to the at-will employment doctrine. For example, an employer cannot terminate an at-will employee for being a member of a protected classbased on “race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability.” Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute, P.C., 304 S.W.3d 81, 92 (Mo. banc 2010) (quoting section 213.055 of the MHRA). Additionally, this Court has adopted the following public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine: An at-will employee may not be terminated (1) for refusing to violate the law or any well established and clear mandate of public policy as expressed in the constitution, statutes, regulations promulgated pursuant to statute, or rules created by a governmental body or (2) for reporting wrongdoing or violations of law to superiors or public authorities…. If an employer terminates an employee for either reason, then the employee has a cause of action in tort for wrongful discharge based on the public-policy exception. Id. at 92.7 Section 287.780’s Historic Construction June 24, 2025 23:04 4/18Downloaded from vLex by Steven Edelman Section 287.780’s Historic Construction Section 287.780 is a statutory exception to the at-will employment doctrine and provides: “No employer or agent shall discharge or in any way discriminate against any employee for exercising any of his [or her] rights under this chapter. Any employee who has been discharged or discriminated against shall have a civil action for damages against his [or her] employer.” This section was enacted in 1925 as a part of the original Missouri workers’ compensation law. Christy v. Petrus, 365 Mo. 1187, 295 S.W.2d 122, 124 (Mo. 1956). At the time of enactment, the workers’ compensation law was construed liberally in favor of the worker and the award of benefits. Maltz v. Jackoway-Katz CapCo., 336 Mo. 1000, 82 S.W.2d 909, 911 (Mo. 1934). Section 287.780 was amended in 1973 to provide employees with the private right of action that remains today.” See Templemire v. W&M Welding, Inc., No. SC93132 (Mo. Apr 15, 2014)

If you’ve been injured at work, then please immediately contact our law firm, and one of our skilled attorneys will be happy to discuss your rights and benefits under workers’ compensation law. Call us for a free consultation: 314-631-6777

Steven Edelman, Attorney

The post DISCRIMINATION IN A MISSOURI WORKERS COMPENSATION CASE, MISSOURI LAW RSMo 287.780 appeared first on Ronald D. Edelman, Attorney.

314-631-6777

1. What is workers’ compensation?

Worker compensation is system under state law where injured workers have the right to recover limited statutory benefits from their employer, which are: 1. medical treatment, 2. wages while off work, and 3. typically a lump sum money settlement or award from a judge to compensate them for their work injury. Workers’ compensation is a no fault system, which means that regardless of whether the injury was caused by the injured workers’ own negligence or carelessness or whether the work injury was caused by the negligence of someone else, for example a co-worker or the employer, the injured worker can still recover benefits under workers compensation. Workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy in most cases for injured workers to receive benefits. Therefore, an injured worker can not sue the employer in civil court for their work injuries. The injured workers’ exclusive remedy is through workers’ compensation.

2. Why was workers’ compensation created?

The workers’ compensation system was created to help facilitate work injuries quickly by creating a state law that spelled out the benefits and responsibilities of the employer and employee. It was also created as a compromise between employers and workers in that it eliminated the need for workers to prove fault in causing the work injury and in return it prevented workers from suing employers in civil court. Employers did not want to be sued in civil court where they could be exposed to a jury awarding large sums of money to injured workers. Employee’s could ensure recovery of benefits without having to prove fault and employer’s were not exposed to large civil court judgments.

The majority of injuries are caused by the employee and not by the negligence of another person. Therefore, workers compensation gives these workers the ability to recover damages for their injuries where otherwise under civil law they would recover nothing.

3. Who am I suing when I file a workers’ compensation case?

In a workers’ compensation case the injured worker is suing the employer. You are not suing your boss, foreman, co-workers, nor the owner of the company.

If you’ve been injured at work, then please immediately contact our law firm, and one of our skilled attorneys will be happy to discuss your rights and benefits under workers’ compensation law. Call us for a free consultation: 314-631-6777

Steven Edelman, Attorney

The post Common Questions about Workers’ Compensation: appeared first on Ronald D. Edelman, Attorney.

The Second Injury Fund (SIF) was created to protect Employers from permanent and total disability (PTD) when an injured worker’s work injury combines with his pre-existing medical conditions and injuries to make him unable to return to any type of work for gainful employment. When the SIF is responsible for PTD then it is referred to PTD due to a “combination” of the work-related injury and the prior medical conditions and injuries. The employer is then responsible to pay for the permanent partial disability (PPD) only related to the work-related injury. The Employer is only responsible for PTD when the work-related injury alone renders the injured worker unable to return to work.

Timeline of Developments in the Law regarding the Second Injury Fund:

“In 2013, the legislature amended section 287.220, which governs[Second Injury] Fund liability,” to limit the number of workers eligible for fund benefits because the Fund was insolvent.” Treasurer of Mo. v. Parker, 622 S.W.3d 178, 181 (Mo. banc 2021). Section 287.220.2 retained the pre-amendment framework for Fund liability for compensable work-related injuries that occurred before January 1, 2014. Id. Section 287.220.3, which governs compensable work-related injuries that occurred after January 1, 2014, eliminated Fund liability for permanent partial disability (“PPD”) claims and limited Fund liability for permanent total disability (“PTD”) claims by requiring that the claimant’s preexisting disabilities be medically documented, equal at least 50 weeks of PPD, and meet one of the criteria listed in section 287.220.3(2)(a)a(i)-(iv). Id. See RSMo 287.220 These Changes took effect on January 1, 2014 Weibrecht v. Treasurer of Mo., No. SC 99493 659 S.W.3d 588, 590-91 (Mo. banc 2023). This new section eliminated Fund liability for permanent partial disability (PPD) cases. Id. 

Since January 1, 2014, there have been interpretations by the courts of section 287.220. The courts address this law in the following cases.

In 2019, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the revisions in the law removing SIF liability for permanent partial disability (PPD) Cosby v. Treasurer of Missouri, 579 S.W.3d 202 (Mo. banc 2019)

Non-Qualifying Disabilities cannot be considered in determining SIF liability: 2022

Any pre-existing disabilities and injuries that do not qualify under RSMo 287.220.3(2)(a)a(ii) can not be considered in determining SIF liability. See Klecka v. Treasurer of Mo., 644 S.W.3d 562, 567 (Mo. banc 2022)

Medically documented qualifying pre-existing disability & Directly and Significantly Aggravated or Accelerated

Dubuc v. Treasurer of Missouri, 659 S.W.3d 596 (Mo. banc 2023)

1. Issue: What is a medically documented qualifying preexisting disability that directly and significantly aggravates or accelerates the primary work injury? AND What does “Directly and Significantly Aggravated or Accelerated” mean?

2. Holding: Claimant failed to establish any “medically documented” preexisting disabilities that “directly and significantly aggravated or accelerated” his primary injury pursuant to Section 287.220.3(2)(a)a(iii), and Claimant failed to prove that his pre-existing disability “directly and significantly aggravated or accelerated” his primary injury. Id.  at 605. 

3. The Court reasoned that Claimant’s self-reported pre-existing hernias was insufficient where there existed no pre-existing medical records for same. Though claimant self-reported his pre-existing by communicating them to the doctors, the claimant’s own statements did not conclusively support that any doctor medically documented claimant having hernias. Id. at 605. The court also reasoned that claimant’s doctor’s statement alone that claimant was permanently and totally disabled (PTD) due to the combination of his work injury and his pre-existing injuries was insufficient to support SIF PTD liability. Under the statute, claimant must show that the impact of his pre-existing injuries and medical conditions more than incidentally effects the work injury. The claimant must show that the prior injuries exacerbate the primary work injury in a meaningful way. Id. at 605. 

Therefore, to help prove a PTD case against the SIF, an employee must have actual treatment records showing evidence of a pre-existing injury/medical condition. It is not enough to have reference of a pre-existing injury mentioned in the history of other doctors’ medical records. Additionally, It is necessary for a doctor to explain in detail the bio-mechanical, physiologically effects of  a prior injury in how it combines with the work injury to make the employee PTD. 

Compensable Prior Injury:

A Commission determined what is means for a pre-existing injury to be defined as “compensable” under Missouri law to qualify for SIF liability.  An injury is defined as “compensable” under RSMo 287.020.3(1) which states that an injury is compensable if the accident was the prevailing factor in causing both the resulting medical condition and disability. In this matter, the claimant testified that he had an out-of-state work injury for which he received benefits. However, claimant failed to produce evidence that his prior work injury in another state was “compensable” as defined under Missouri law. No evidence was presented from a doctor stating the the prior out-of-state work injury was the prevailing factor in causing the injury and resultant disability See Commission Decision, Thomas v. Collins & Hermann, Inc., 052924 MOWC 15-092163

Occupational Diseases do not qualify as Pre-existing injuries: 2025

1. The Missouri Supreme Court held that occupational diseases, such as carpal tunnel syndrome do not qualify as pre-existing disabilities under Missouri law RSMo 287.220.3(2)(a)a(iii), See Treasurer of the Missouri v. Penney, SC 100693 (Mo. banc 2025)

If you’ve been injured at work, then please immediately contact our law firm, and one of our skilled attorneys will be happy to discuss your rights and benefits under workers’ compensation law. Call us for a free consultation: 314-631-6777

Steven Edelman, Attorney

The post Timeline of Changes in the The Second Injury Fund law in a Missouri Workers’ Compensation case appeared first on Ronald D. Edelman, Attorney.

By Steven Edelman

Often in a Missouri workers’ compensation case, the employer/insurer will unjustifiably stop payment of weekly temporary total disability (TTD) benefits to an injured worker. This termination of TTD benefits is sometimes in contradiction to a doctor’s off work order. When a hardship hearing is requested, the court shall set the case for trial on this issue within 30 days of such request. In practice, some judges will have a pre-trial hardship mediation/conference to discuss possible resolution of the matter prior to having a hardship trial.

Under Missouri law RSMo 287.203 states as follows:

287.203.  Termination of compensation by employer, employee right to hearing — assessment of costs. — “Whenever the employer has provided compensation under section 287.170, 287.180 or 287.200, and terminates such compensation, the employer shall notify the employee of such termination and shall advise the employee of the reason for such termination.  If the employee disputes the termination of such benefits, the employee may request a hearing before the division and the division shall set the matter for hearing within thirty days of such request and the division shall hear the matter on the date of hearing and no continuances or delays may be granted except upon a showing of good cause or by consent of the parties.  The division shall render a decision within thirty days of the date of hearing.  If the division or the commission determines that any proceedings have been brought, prosecuted, or defended without reasonable grounds, the division may assess the whole cost of the proceedings upon the party who brought, prosecuted, or defended them. See https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=287.203

If you’ve been injured at work, then please immediately contact our law firm, and one of our skilled attorneys will be happy to discuss your rights and benefits under workers’ compensation law. Call us for a free consultation: 314-631-6777

Steven Edelman, Attorney

The post If the employer/insurer fails to pay you your weekly benefits of temporary total disability (TTD), then you may file a request for a hardship hearing/trial under section 287.203 to ask the judge to award you TTD. appeared first on Ronald D. Edelman, Attorney.

When an employer/insurer fails to pay an injured worker temporary total disability (TTD) then your attorney can file a request for 19(b) hearing and also requests fees and penalties against the employer/insurer for failure to to pay TTD. Fees and penalties are allowed under section 19(k), 19(l) and 16 of the Illinois workers’ compensation law found under 820 ILCS 305.

820 ILCS 305/19(k)

19(k) penalties: Under this section employer/insurers are penalized for non-payment of benefits owed to an injured worker. The penalty under this section is 50% of the unpaid amount.

See Illinois law per 820 ILCS 305/19(k)

“In case where there has been any unreasonable or vexatious delay of payment or intentional underpayment of compensation, or proceedings have been instituted or carried on by the one liable to pay the compensation, which do not present a real controversy, but are merely frivolous or for delay, then the Commission may award compensation additional to that otherwise payable under this Act equal to 50% of the amount payable at the time of such award. Failure to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 8, paragraph (b) of this Act, shall be considered unreasonable delay.” https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=082003050K19

820 ILCS 305/19(l)

19(l) penalties: This section of Illinois law allows a penalty against the employer/insurer of $30 per day for failure to pay weekly TTD compensation benefits up to a maximum penalty of $10,000. The law states under 820 ILCS 305(l):

“If the employee has made written demand for payment of benefits under Section 8(a) or Section 8(b), the employer shall have 14 days after receipt of the demand to set forth in writing the reason for the delay. In the case of demand for payment of medical benefits under Section 8(a), the time for the employer to respond shall not commence until the expiration of the allotted 30 days specified under Section 8.2(d). In case the employer or his or her insurance carrier shall without good and just cause fail, neglect, refuse, or unreasonably delay the payment of benefits under Section 8(a) or Section 8(b), the Arbitrator or the Commission shall allow to the employee additional compensation in the sum of $30 per day for each day that the benefits under Section 8(a) or Section 8(b) have been so withheld or refused, not to exceed $10,000. A delay in payment of 14 days or more shall create a rebuttable presumption of unreasonable delay.”

820 ILCS 305/16

16 penalties: This section provides for attorneys’ fees when 19(k) and 19(l) penalties are sought. The law states under 805 ILCS 305/16:

“Whenever the Commission shall find that the employer, his or her agent, service company or insurance carrier has been guilty of delay or unfairness towards an employee in the adjustment, settlement or payment of benefits due such employee within the purview of the provisions of paragraph (c) of Section 4 of this Act; or has been guilty of unreasonable or vexatious delay, intentional under-payment of compensation benefits, or has engaged in frivolous defenses which do not present a real controversy, within the purview of the provisions of paragraph (k) of Section 19 of this Act, the Commission may assess all or any part of the attorney’s fees and costs against such employer and his or her insurance carrier.”

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=082003050K16

If you’ve been injured at work, then please immediately contact our law firm, and one of our skilled attorneys will be happy to discuss your rights and benefits under workers’ compensation law. Call us for a free consultation: 314-631-6777

Steven Edelman, Attorney

The post Fees and Penalties against the Employer/Insurer in an Illinois Workers’ Compensation Case under Illinois law 820 ILCS 305 sections 19(k), 19(l) and 16. appeared first on Ronald D. Edelman, Attorney.

In a Missouri Workers’ Compensation case either the employer or the employee can serve a complete report of their doctor’s rating report on each other at least 60 days prior to a trial/hearing. Service of the complete report removes the necessity for the serving party to incur the costs to take the deposition of their rating doctor. The party receiving the served report then has 10 days to file objection with the court to the other party’s service of complete report.

The requirements to serve a complete report are stated under Missouri law in RSMo section 287.210.7 which states as follows:

“The testimony of a treating or examining physician may be submitted in evidence on the issues in controversy by a complete medical report and shall be admissible without other foundational evidence subject to compliance with the following procedures.  The party intending to submit a complete medical report in evidence shall give notice at least sixty days prior to the hearing to all parties and shall provide reasonable opportunity to all parties to obtain cross-examination testimony of the physician by deposition.  The notice shall include a copy of the report and all the clinical and treatment records of the physician including copies of all records and reports received by the physician from other health care providers.  The party offering the report must make the physician available for cross-examination testimony by deposition not later than seven days before the matter is set for hearing, and each cross-examiner shall compensate the physician for the portion of testimony obtained in an amount not to exceed a rate of reasonable compensation taking into consideration the specialty practiced by the physician.  Cross-examination testimony shall not bind the cross-examining party.  Any testimony obtained by the offering party shall be at that party’s expense on a proportional basis, including the deposition fee of the physician.  Upon request of any party, the party offering a complete medical report in evidence must also make available copies of X rays or other diagnostic studies obtained by or relied upon by the physician.  Within ten days after receipt of such notice a party shall dispute whether a report meets the requirements of a complete medical report by providing written objections to the offering party stating the grounds for the dispute, and at the request of any party, the administrative law judge shall rule upon such objections upon pretrial hearing whether the report meets the requirements of a complete medical report and upon the admissibility of the report or portions thereof.  If no objections are filed the report is admissible, and any objections thereto are deemed waived.  Nothing herein shall prevent the parties from agreeing to admit medical reports or records by consent.”

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=287.210

If you’ve been injured at work, then please immediately contact our law firm, and one of our skilled attorneys will be happy to discuss your rights and benefits under workers’ compensation law. Call us for a free consultation: 314-631-6777

Steven Edelman, Attorney

The post Service of Complete Report of Doctor in a Missouri Workers’ Compensation Case under Missouri Law RSMo 287.210.7 appeared first on Ronald D. Edelman, Attorney.

Steven A. Edelman, Attorney 314-631-6777

What are the reporting requirements for an injured worker and the employer in a Missouri Workers’ Compensation Case:

Employee Required to make written report of injury:

The injured worker must make a written report of injury to the employer within 30 days of the work injury. This report of injury in writing should be made to a person in a position of manager, human resources, an owner of the employer, boss or supervisor.

See Missouri law RSMo 287.420 “No proceedings for compensation for any accident under this chapter shall be maintained unless written notice of the time, place and nature of the injury, and the name and address of the person injured, has been given to the employer no later than thirty days after the accident, unless the employer was not prejudiced by failure to receive the notice.  No proceedings for compensation for any occupational disease or repetitive trauma under this chapter shall be maintained unless written notice of the time, place, and nature of the injury, and the name and address of the person injured, has been given to the employer no later than thirty days after the diagnosis of the condition unless the employee can prove the employer was not prejudiced by failure to receive the notice. https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=287.420

Employer Required to Report work injury to the Court:

The employer then has 30 days file a report of the work injury with the court, which is called the Missouri Division of Workers’ Compensation. The employer’s report of injury to the court is called a Form 1 or WC-1 See RSMo 287.380, which states: “Every employer or his insurer in this state, whether he has accepted or rejected the provisions of this chapter, shall within thirty days after knowledge of the injury, file with the division under such rules and regulations and in such form and detail as the division may require, a full and complete report of every injury or death to any employee for which the employer would be liable to furnish medical aid . . .” https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=287.380

Extension of Statute of Limitations if Employer fails to make report of injury within 30 days to the Court:

If the employer fails to make a report of injury to the court within 30 days of their knowledge of the work injury, then the statue of limitations to file the injured worker’s workers’ compensation case is extended to 3 years, instead of 2 years.

If you’ve been injured at work, then please immediately contact our law firm, and one of our skilled attorneys will be happy to discuss your rights and benefits under workers’ compensation law. Call us for a free consultation: 314-631-6777

Steven Edelman, Attorney

The post Reporting your Work Injury and Reporting Requirements of Employer in a Missouri Workers’ Compensation Case? appeared first on Ronald D. Edelman, Attorney.

The Second Injury Fund (SIF) is a state fund of money that is administered by Missouri State Treasurer and the Missouri Attorney General’s Office (AGO). The SIF is represented by an attorney from the AGO who is called an Assistant Attorney General (AAG). The money that funds the SIF comes from the Missouri State Treasury. The Missouri State Treasurer gets its money to fund the SIF from surcharges on the premiums paid by all Missouri employers when they pay for their workers’ compensation insurance coverage.

The purpose of the SIF is to protect employers from permanent and total disability (PTD) cases when the employee is found to be PTD due to their last work injury at the employer in combination with their pre-existing medical conditions and injuries. See also explanation of the purpose of the SIF by the courts:

“The purpose of the Second Injury Fund is twofold: to encourage the employment of individuals who are already disabled; and to relieve an employer or his insurer of liability for the previously disabled employee’s total and permanent disability where that disability is not specifically attributable to an injury suffered during the period of employment with that employer.” Parker v. Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund WD83030 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) citing Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. banc 2003)

The injured worker’s pre-existing medical conditions and injuries have to meet specific requirements under Missouri law to be considered to combine with the last work injury at the employer. These requirements are stated in Missouri law under RSMo Section 287.220.3(2)(a) https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=287.220 which states that after January 1, 2014, all pre-existing injuries to combine against the SIF for PTD must meet the following:

“If any employee who has a preexisting permanent partial disability whether from compensable injury or otherwise, of such seriousness as to constitute a hindrance or obstacle to employment or to obtaining reemployment if the employee becomes unemployed, and the preexisting permanent partial disability, if a body as a whole injury, equals a minimum of fifty weeks of compensation or, if a major extremity injury only, equals a minimum of fifteen percent permanent partial disability, according to the medical standards that are used in determining such compensation, receives a subsequent compensable injury resulting in additional permanent partial disability so that the degree or percentage of disability, in an amount equal to a minimum of fifty weeks compensation, if a body as a whole injury or, if a major extremity injury only, equals a minimum of fifteen percent permanent partial disability, . . .” RSMo 287.220.2

AND

3.  (1)  All claims against the second injury fund for injuries occurring after January 1, 2014, and all claims against the second injury fund involving a subsequent compensable injury which is an occupational disease filed after January 1, 2014, shall be compensated as provided in this subsection.

  (2)  No claims for permanent partial disability occurring after January 1, 2014, shall be filed against the second injury fund.  Claims for permanent total disability under section 287.200 against the second injury fund shall be compensable only when the following conditions are met:

  (a)  a.  An employee has a medically documented preexisting disability equaling a minimum of fifty weeks of permanent partial disability compensation according to the medical standards that are used in determining such compensation which is:

  (i)  A direct result of active military duty in any branch of the United States Armed Forces; or

  (ii)  A direct result of a compensable injury as defined in section 287.020; or

  (iii)  Not a compensable injury, but such preexisting disability directly and significantly aggravates or accelerates the subsequent work-related injury and shall not include unrelated preexisting injuries or conditions that do not aggravate or accelerate the subsequent work-related injury;

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=287.220

In summary, the pre-existing injuries or medical conditions that can combine must 1. Meet a 50 week threshold of disability; and be the result of either 2. Active duty military service, or 3. A direct result of a prior compensable work injury; or 4. the prior medical condition and injury must significantly aggravate or accelerate the work injury suffered at the employer.

If an injured worker is found to be PTD against the SIF, then the SIF is liable for paying the PTD value of the case, and the employer will only be liable for the work injury at the employer. An injured worker must file a claim against the SIF when they file the workers’ compensation case against the employer. An injured worker must list out the prior conditions and injuries on the claim that allege are disabling.

If you’ve been injured at work, then please immediately contact our law firm, and one of our skilled attorneys will be happy to discuss your rights and benefits under workers’ compensation law. Call us for a free consultation: 314-631-6777

Steven Edelman, Attorney

The post What is the Second Injury Fund (SIF) in a Missouri Workers’ Compensation Case? appeared first on Ronald D. Edelman, Attorney.

By Steven Edelman, Attorney 314-631-6777

Missouri Law

The courts have stated the following:

“Missouri courts have long held a claimant can be compensated when a work injury aggravates a pre-existing condition to the level of disability,” provided there is medical causation of the work injury causing the resultant disability. Harris v. Ralls Cnty., 588 S.W.3d 579, 603 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019)

“The aggravation of a pre-existing condition or its symptoms may constitute a sufficient change in pathology to qualify for compensation . . .” Id.

‘It is well established law that a preexisting but non-disabling condition does not bar recovery of compensation if a job-related injury causes the condition to escalate to the level of disability.’ Id.

“A work accident may be the prevailing factor in causing an injury sustained due to the aggravation of preexisting, asymptomatic degenerative condition.” Id.

If you’ve been injured at work, then please immediately contact our law firm, and one of our skilled attorneys will be happy to discuss your rights and benefits under workers’ compensation law. Call us for a free consultation: 314-631-6777

Steven Edelman, Attorney

The post Can an injured worker recover benefits under Missouri Workers’ Compensation when the work injury aggravates a pre-existing condition? appeared first on Ronald D. Edelman, Attorney.

There are two types of Missouri workers’ compensation cases:

1. Permanent Partial Disability (PPD): A PPD case is one where the injured worker is able to return to work. The injured work may not be able to return to their old job due to the work injury, but they are still able to work a different job, whether in a different field or less strenuous position in the same area of work. This type of case is called a permanent partial disability or PPD case. Again, the injured worked is still able to work. Examples of PPD cases are many and can involve any type of injury. A PPD workers’ compensation case is different from a permanent total disability (PTD) case, where the injured worker can not return to work. The courts have defined permanent partial disability (PPD) as: A “permanent partial disability” is “a disability that is permanent in nature and partial in degree.” Cantrell v. Baldwin Transp. Inc. , 296 S.W.3d 17, 20 (Mo. App. 2009). “The level of permanent partial disability associated with an injury cannot be determined until the injury ‘reaches a point where it will no longer improve with medical treatment’ or, in other words, reaches maximum medical improvement.” Id . (quoting Cardwell v. Treasurer of State of Mo. , 249 S.W.3d 902, 910 (Mo.App.2008) ).
2. Permanent and Total Disability (PTD): In a PTD case, the injured worker is so injured that they can not return to their old job to work, nor can they work any other type of job due to their work injury. These types of cases are called PTD cases for short. The courts have defined PTD as the ‘inability to return to any employment and not merely [the] inability to return to the employment in which the employee was engaged at the time of the accident.’ RSMO 287.020.6, See Harris v. Ralls County, 588 S.W.3d 579 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019). ‘Any employee is permanently and totally disabled if no employer in the usual course of business would reasonably be expected to employ the employee in his or her present physical condition.’ Id. The burden is on the claimant to establish that he is permanently and totally disabled. Id. “Whether a claimant is permanently and totally disabled is a factual question, not a legal question. Id.

If you’ve been injured at work, then please immediately contact our law firm, and one of our skilled attorneys will be happy to discuss your rights and benefits under workers’ compensation law. Call us for a free consultation: 314-631-6777

Steven Edelman, Attorney

The post What is Permanent and Total Disability (PTD) versus Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) in a Missouri Workers’ Compensation Case? appeared first on Ronald D. Edelman, Attorney.