You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Redd v. Earl Henderson Trucking/TTC of Illinois

Citations: 154 S.W.3d 483; 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 243; 2005 WL 287971Docket: No. WD 63808

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals; February 7, 2005; Missouri; State Appellate Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
Edward L. Redd, a truck driver, suffered a slip and fall incident at work on June 22, 1999, resulting in paraplegia. Initially, his claim for worker’s compensation was denied by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who concluded that the injury did not arise in the course of employment. However, the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission overturned this decision, granting Redd permanent total disability benefits, along with past and future medical expenses. 

On the day of the incident, Redd fell on a wet surface and experienced immediate symptoms, including a vibration sensation in his legs. Despite notifying his employer, he did not receive any medical treatment, as the employer failed to facilitate care. Redd's condition deteriorated, leading to multiple falls due to his legs collapsing. After the final fall on October 21, 1999, he was taken to a medical facility where he recounted the history of his injuries, without any prior conditions reported. 

Subsequent evaluations by Dr. David Lay and Dr. David G. Paff indicated that Redd's fall led to significant spinal injuries, including a burst compression fracture, which went untreated and ultimately resulted in his paralysis. The Commission found sufficient evidence to support Redd's claim, leading to the appeal by the employer, which is subject to the standard of review that requires affirmation of the Commission’s decision unless it contradicts the overwhelming weight of evidence.

Employer argued that there was insufficient evidence for the Commission to determine that Claimant sustained a compensable accident, specifically noting that medical records did not explicitly mention "slipped" regarding Claimant’s June 22, 1999 fall. Employer deemed Claimant’s inconsistent explanations for this omission as incredible and contended that Claimant's injury was merely sustained while working, not exacerbated by his workplace. The court disagreed, finding that the overall record provided adequate support for a job-related injury. Key supporting evidence included Claimant’s testimony, corroborated by his co-driver's account of observing Claimant stagger after the fall, and the findings of his treating and evaluating physicians, who attributed his condition to the fall that fractured his T5 vertebrae, confirmed by an MRI report.

Employer further claimed the Commission failed to apply the proper evidentiary standard regarding the credibility of medical records. However, the court clarified that the Commission's comments were not a dismissal of the records but rather a contextual evaluation of the evidence. The Commission referenced testimonies from Doctors Lay and Paff, reinforcing that Claimant’s paralysis stemmed from his fall. Claimant argued that inaccuracies in the medical records were due to recording errors, which the Commission could consider.

Regarding Employer's final point, it contended that Claimant failed to prove his injury arose "out of and in the course of" employment solely based on his testimony. The court found corroborating evidence from multiple sources, including testimonies from his co-driver and medical professionals, substantiating Claimant’s claims. Consequently, the court affirmed the award of workers’ compensation benefits, as the collective evidence supported the Commission’s decision, even in the face of conflicting accounts. The judgment was upheld unanimously.