Bailey v. Phelps County Regional Medical Center
328 S.W.3d 770
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Bailey, claimant, sought workers' compensation from Phelps County Regional Medical Center where she was employed.
- The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denied benefits, finding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment.
- Bailey’s brief violated Rule 84.04 (c) and (i); appeal potentially subject to dismissal for noncompliance.
- Appellant argued the Commission relied on Bivins to deny benefits and that the facts showed an accident arising in employment.
- The appellate court reviewed the whole record for substantial and competent evidence and deferred to credibility determinations by the Commission.
- The court affirmed the judgment, concluding the record supported the Commission’s reliance on Miller and the lack of a rational connection to employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 84.04 compliance validity | Bailey violated Rule 84.04; merits review preserved only if cured. | Violations warrant dismissal and review should be limited accordingly. | Violations warranted dismissal, but court gratuitously reviewed. |
| Arising out of and in the course of employment | In total evidence, Bailey’s injury arose from employment. | Knee gave way while walking; not connected to employment factors; Miller controls. | Affirmed: the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment; Miller supported the decision. |
| Use of Bivins v. St. John's Regional Health Center | Bivins undermines the Commission’s reasoning. | Bivins not controlling; evidence supports denial under Miller. | Held: Bivins relied upon; court distinguished but still affirmed based on Miller and record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Missouri Highway & Transportation, 287 S.W.3d 671 (Mo. banc 2009) (court relied on a rational connection between accident and employment)
- Bivins v. St. John's Regional Health Center, 272 S.W.3d 446 (Mo.App. S.D. 2008) (fact pattern distinguished; not controlling in this case)
- Yates v. Briggs & Stratton, 302 S.W.3d 776 (Mo.App. S.D. 2010) (requires record to support factual assertions with record citations)
- Brown v. Shannahan, 141 S.W.3d 77 (Mo.App. E.D. 2004) (rules on preservation of error for appellate review)
- Brown v. Ameristar Casino Kansas City, Inc., 211 S.W.3d 145 (Mo.App. W.D. 2007) (rule compliance and preservation guidance)
- Coale v. Hilles, 976 S.W.2d 61 (Mo.App. S.D. 1998) (noncompliant points present nothing for review)
- Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. banc 2003) (standard of review for commission findings)
- Kent v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 147 S.W.3d 865 (Mo.App. W.D. 2004) (credibility and weight considerations on appeal)