Brad Young of Harris, Dowell, Fisher & Young, LC
August 5, 2024 - Back in 2017, the Supreme Court of Missouri issued a blockbuster opinion in Mantia v. Missouri Department of Transportation, 529 S.W.3d 804 (Mo banc. 2017). In that case, claimant’s job involved investigating fatal motor vehicle accidents, which also involved viewing dead and mutilated bodies in conjunction with her job duties. Because of viewing mutilated bodies on a regular basis, claimant filed a Mental-Mental psych claim against her employer, the Missouri Department of Transportation.
Although the administrative law judge and the Industrial Commission found her claim to be compensable, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed, finding that claimant failed to prove that the emotional stress she encountered on the job was “extraordinary and unusual” when compared to the emotional stress encountered by similarly-situated employees. The Court rested its decision on Missouri Workers Compensation Act, §287.120.8, which states:
“[m]ental injury resulting from work-related stress does not arise out of and in the course of the employment, unless it is demonstrated that the stress is work related and was extraordinary and unusual. The amount of work stress shall be measured by objective standards and actual events.” Id.
And to recover under benefits under the Missouri Workers Compensation Act, §287.120.8, the Court ruled that a claimant must also demonstrate:
“By objective standards and actual events the amount of work stress endured was both work related and was extraordinary and unusual.”
RECENT DECISION
When the Missouri Supreme Court found the claim non-compensable in 2017, the Court did not simply dismiss the claim. Instead, the Court remanded the claim to the Industrial Commission to allow the claimant to obtain more evidence to determine whether the work-stress she encountered was “extraordinary and unusual” when compared to the emotional stress encountered by similarly-situated employees.
In the attached award from the Industrial Commission, the Commission found that claimant was able to prove that the stress she encountered was “extraordinary and unusual” when compared to the emotional stress encountered by similarly-situated employees. In light of this finding, the Commission awarded permanent total disability benefits.
PRACTICE POINTS
There are some issues for further appeals dealing with whether the Supreme Court actually intended to allow the claimant an opportunity to develop and submit additional evidence, but the eventual ruling on this appellate issue does not change how we approach the defense of mental-mental psych claims.
Even though the Commission has now found that this claim is compensable, the employer-favorable standards established by the Missouri Supreme Court in the underlying claim from 2017 still stand, that being:
“The objective standard for determining whether employee’s stress was compensable is whether the same or similar actual work events would cause a reasonable (employee) extraordinary and unusual stress.
Such evidence might be introduced through the testimony of other (employees) as to the circumstances that are experienced as part of the job in general.
Individualized, subjective reactions to those circumstances are irrelevant.
The employee need not show the subjective experiences of her fellow workers were not as severe as her experiences, but rather, she must demonstrate the actual events she experienced were such that a reasonable (worker) would experience extraordinary and unusual stress.”
Remember, it is the claimant’s burden of proof, NOT the employer/insurer, when it comes to developing evidence to support the objective standards outlined above. This means it is the claimant’s job to find witnesses, subpoena witnesses, and depose witnesses to obtain factual evidence, and to then obtain expert testimony proving that the claimant’s job objectively exposed him/her to “extraordinary and unusual” stress when compared to the emotional stress encountered by similarly-situated employees.
Please let me know if you have any questions or if you wish to discuss how this ruling might apply to any of your current or potential claims. I’m happy to help at byoung@harrisdowell.com.
Comments