LINDA DORRIS, Employee-Respondent v. STODDARD COUNTY, Employer-Appellant.
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 94
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Claimant Linda Dorris, a county employee, was asked by her supervisor to inspect new workstations at a new office across a busy street during work hours.
- While returning “on the clock,” Dorris tripped and fell on the public street, injuring her right shoulder and later undergoing rotator cuff surgery.
- Photographs and testimony established cracked pavement where the fall occurred; Dorris testified she was watching traffic and had no medical condition causing falls.
- An ALJ awarded workers’ compensation; the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission adopted and supplemented the award, finding a nexus between the work task and the fall.
- Stoddard County appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence that a pavement crack caused the fall, (2) the injury occurred on a public street while not performing a work benefit, and (3) Dorris was equally exposed to the risk in nonemployment life.
- The court reviewed for substantial competent evidence and affirmed the Commission’s award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation — what caused the fall? | Dorris: cracked pavement + photos + lack of alternative causes support inference she tripped on a crack. | County: no direct testimony that a crack caused the fall; insufficient evidence. | Court: Commission could reasonably infer cause from testimony and photos; substantial evidence supports finding she tripped on a crack. |
| Equally exposed — was the hazard one of ordinary life? | Dorris: hazard was the particular cracked, busy street she was required to cross for work, not a general everyday risk. | County: risk of tripping is one equally encountered in nonemployment life; thus noncompensable. | Court: Strict statutory construction requires identifying the specific hazard; here hazard was that particular street tied to employment — not equally encountered in nonwork life. |
| Arising out of and in the course of employment — location/control (public street) | Dorris: she was on the clock and performing a supervisor-requested task across the street; causal connection to work. | County: accident occurred on a public street outside employer control; alleged break/time-off defense. | Court: Because she was on the clock and directed to perform the task, the injury arose out of and in the course of employment; Section 287.020.5 defenses (commute/extended-premises) do not apply. |
| Standard of review / credibility deference | Dorris: Commission’s credibility and reasonable inferences entitled to deference. | County: appellate court should require direct evidence and treat facts as undisputed legal questions. | Court: Defer to Commission on credibility and inferences; facts were contested so Commission’s findings control. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johme v. St. John’s Mercy Healthcare, 366 S.W.3d 504 (Mo. banc) (clarifies need to show causal connection and equal-exposure analysis under amended statute)
- Miller v. Missouri Highway & Transp. Comm’n, 287 S.W.3d 671 (Mo. banc) (injury occurring while walking not compensable if risk equal in nonemployment life)
- Duever v. All Outdoors, Inc., 371 S.W.3d 863 (Mo. App. E.D.) (distinguishes Miller where employee was in an unsafe location due to employment; hazard tied to specific place)
- Bivins v. St. John’s Regional Health Ctr., 272 S.W.3d 446 (Mo. App. S.D.) (deference to Commission on credibility and factual inferences)
- Tiger v. Quality Transp., Inc., 375 S.W.3d 925 (Mo. App. S.D.) (circumstantial evidence acceptable in slip-and-fall causation)
- Georgescu v. K Mart Corp., 813 S.W.2d 298 (Mo. banc) (plaintiff may rely on circumstantial evidence to prove causation)