Abt v. Mississippi Lime Co.
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 159
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Claimant Abt sustained January 2001 work injuries (primary injuries) including left leg degloving, back, ribs; he returned to work then quit in 2005 due to leg swelling and other symptoms.
- The first Commission award found permanent total disability (PTD) and assigned liability and medical expense reimbursements; this court did not appeal that PTD finding, making it law of the case.
- On remand after Abt I, the Commission reconsidered PTD and found only 15% enhanced permanent partial disability (PPD); no new evidence was presented.
- Abt I remanded for more specific findings on past medical expenses (2005–2006) and treatment causation; the remand was treated as general but with law-of-the-case limits.
- This appeal challenges the PTD ruling, the remand scope, and reimbursement of certain past medical expenses; the court reverses as to PTD and some expenses and remands for calculation.
- The opinion affirms as to the remaining medical reimbursement issues and clarifies the law-of-the-case impact on PTD.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is PTD conclusively decided by law of the case and free from reconsideration on remand? | Abt; PTD existed and law-of-the-case barred reversal. | Mississippi Lime; remand allowed new causation analysis. | Yes; PTD remains law of the case and cannot be negated by later remand. |
| Was the remand a general remand or a mandate with directions affecting PTD? | Remand preserved PTD finding; allowed review of causation. | Remand allowed reexamination of cause within the evidence. | Remand treated as general; law-of-the-case controls existence of PTD. |
| Did the Commission err in denying reimbursement for October–November 2005 medical expenses? | Expenses causally linked to 2001 injury; employer waived treatment-rights. | No explicit preservation; lack of causal testimony. | Reversed; $10,859.57 awarded for those expenses. |
| Is the claimant entitled to PTD benefits based on the combination of 2001 injuries and pre-existing conditions? | Record shows PTD from combination of injuries and pre-existing conditions. | Second award supported only 15% enhanced PPD; no PTD. | Yes; claimant permanently and totally disabled due to combination; remand for PTD benefits accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abt v. Mississippi Lime Co., 388 S.W.3d 571 (Mo.App.E.D.2012) (PTD law-of-the-case established; remand for precise findings on expenses)
- Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 410 S.W.3d 623 (Mo. banc 2013) (mandate and remand distinctions; general remands and law-of-the-case importance)
- Guidry v. Charter Communications, Inc., 308 S.W.3d 765 (Mo.App.E.D.2010) (mandate scope and interpretation on remand)
- Walton v. City of Berkeley, 265 S.W.3d 287 (Mo.App.E.D.2008) (law-of-the-case and scope in successive adjudications)
- Martin v. Mid-America Farm Lines, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 105 (Mo. banc 1989) (governing reimbursement and causal connection in medical aid)
- Wiele v. National Super Markets, Inc., 948 S.W.2d 142 (Mo.App.E.D.1997) (employer waiver of control over medical treatment upon failure to provide necessary aid)
- Edmi son v. Clarke, 61 S.W.3d 302 (Mo.App.W.D.2001) (remand and retroactivity guidance relevant to PTD issues)