Jeffrey Hicks v. State of Missouri, Department of Corrections and Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund

Citation: Not availableDocket: ED108023

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals; March 17, 2020; Missouri; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jeffrey Hicks appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of his temporary total disability (TTD) benefits related to an injury sustained while training as a corrections officer at the Regional Diagnostic Correctional Center in Bonne Terre, Missouri. Hicks injured his left arm and shoulder during defensive tactics training on January 2, 2014, but initially refrained from seeking medical treatment due to job security concerns. After his condition worsened, he sought medical attention on January 30, 2014, leading to a diagnosis of a posterior labral tear and tendinosis. Following surgery on February 21, 2014, Hicks was released for one-arm duty but was unable to find light duty work, as his employer had none available. His probationary period was extended, but despite ongoing pain, he was declared at maximum medical improvement and cleared for full duty by August 26, 2014. Hicks expressed concerns about his ability to perform full duties safely and requested light duty, which was denied. He subsequently failed to report to work after September 21, 2014, and did not follow the employer's reporting procedures for absences. Consequently, he received a termination notice on November 18, 2014, for unauthorized absences and policy violations. The court ultimately reversed the Commission's decision regarding TTD benefits.

Hicks sought medical treatment for shoulder and arm pain from Dr. Michael Snyder, who conducted an examination on January 22, 2015. He reported pain from his shoulder to his bicep, leading Dr. Snyder to recommend further conservative treatment and potential exploratory surgery. On May 13, 2015, Dr. Snyder stated Hicks was unemployable due to his January 2014 injury, corroborating Hicks' claims to his employer about his inability to return to work without further treatment. 

On March 16, 2015, the employer referred Hicks back to Dr. Emanuel, who confirmed the failure of Hicks' February 2014 surgery. Dr. Emanuel performed extensive surgery on April 1, 2015, and released Hicks to one-arm duty on April 7, 2015. By April 28, 2015, Dr. Emanuel deemed Hicks at maximum medical improvement (MMI) and capable of full duty work, but Hicks felt he could not safely return. Following further requests for treatment, Hicks consulted Dr. Christopher Lenarz on October 30, 2015, who diagnosed him with a bicipital labral complex injury and performed surgery on December 17, 2015. By February 10, 2016, Dr. Lenarz declared Hicks at MMI and able to work full duty, a date later stipulated by both parties.

Hicks filed for compensation for unpaid temporary total disability (TTD) until February 10, 2016. The employer contested this claim, asserting that Hicks was terminated for "post-injury misconduct" under Section 287.170.4. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Hicks credible regarding his absence due to injury, granting him TTD. However, the Commission upheld the ALJ's findings but disagreed on TTD entitlement, citing Hicks' failure to comply with employer policies regarding absence notification and participation in disciplinary processes. 

In his appeal, Hicks argued that the Commission misinterpreted "misconduct," claiming the employer did not prove that his actions constituted misconduct since there was no evidence of intentional wrongdoing. He further contended that the Commission's interpretation wrongfully categorized injury-related absences as misconduct. The review of the second point is decisive, making the first point unnecessary for consideration.

Section 287.495.1 establishes the standard of review for workers' compensation cases, permitting modification, reversal, remand, or nullification of awards only under specific conditions: if the commission acted beyond its powers, if the award was obtained through fraud, if the facts do not support the award, or if there was insufficient evidence for the award. The review examines the entire record to evaluate whether the commission's conclusions were reasonable based on the evidence presented. Questions of statutory interpretation are approached with a de novo standard. 

Workers' compensation is a statutory framework, necessitating an interpretation aligned with legislative intent and the plain meaning of statutory language. Temporary total disability (TTD) awards are designed to cover an employee’s recovery period until they return to work or reach maximum medical improvement (MMI). TTD benefits are not warranted if the claimant is capable of returning to work, and the burden lies with the claimant to prove their entitlement to such benefits. 

Section 287.170.4 restricts TTD recovery if an employee is terminated for post-injury misconduct, which excludes absences due to injury unless the employee can work with restrictions as certified by a physician. The commission modified the award of TTD benefits for Hicks, asserting termination was due to misconduct related to improper reporting of absences rather than the absences themselves. This interpretation misapplies statutory construction principles, as the statute clearly states that absence due to injury is not misconduct unless the employee is capable of working with restrictions. 

The employer was aware that Hicks' absences were related to his injury, and there was no evidence that he could return to full duty after his injury. Medical assessments indicated that Hicks did not reach MMI until February 10, 2016. Therefore, his absences resulted from his injury, and while the employer could terminate him for policy violations, the commission’s rationale for denying TTD benefits based on alleged misconduct was erroneous.

Hicks' termination does not disqualify him from receiving Temporary Total Disability (TTD) benefits under Section 287.170.4 because his misconduct was linked to his absence due to an injury, which the statute explicitly exempts from "post-injury misconduct." While the Commission agreed that the Employer could terminate Hicks for not properly reporting his absences, the statute does not allow for TTD benefits to be denied when absences are injury-related unless the employee is certified by a physician as capable of working with restrictions. Hicks was not deemed capable of such work until February 10, 2016, as agreed by both parties. Therefore, the Commission incorrectly interpreted Section 287.170.4 and modified the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) award of TTD benefits. The judgment of the Commission is reversed and remanded with instructions to restore the ALJ’s award of TTD benefits. Judges Lisa P. Page, Philip M. Hess, and Kurt S. Odenwald concur.