Miller v. Tema Isenmann, Inc.
542 S.W.3d 265
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Miller worked 15 years at TEMA (1995–2010); MOCA (a suspected human carcinogen) was used in production and sometimes handled in open-air processes before a closed system was installed circa 2005.
- Miller's office opened onto the plant; he regularly entered the production floor and alleges airborne MOCA exposure that caused his bladder cancer diagnosed in 2010.
- TEMA periodically urine-tested production employees (not office staff); some employees tested positive for MOCA during Miller’s tenure, but TEMA disputes that MOCA was ever airborne.
- ALJ awarded Miller permanent total disability and medical benefits after finding workplace MOCA exposure caused his cancer; ALJ relied in part on treating oncologist Dr. Rinehart’s opinion (>50% chance MOCA caused the cancer).
- Administrative and appellate history: Board vacated/remanded twice directing a university evaluation under KRS 342.315/342.316; Commissioner and ALJ attempted referrals but universities declined; ALJ proceeded with a non-university evaluator and again awarded benefits; Court of Appeals reversed on statutory/mandatory-evaluator grounds.
- Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals: held there was substantial evidence to support ALJ’s finding of occupational disease and that the statutes do not mandate dismissal or paralysis of a claim when university evaluators are unavailable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Miller) | Defendant's Argument (TEMA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supported ALJ finding that Miller’s bladder cancer was an occupational disease caused by MOCA exposure | Miller: testimony, plant conditions, positive MOCA urine tests of coworkers, and Dr. Rinehart’s opinion show exposure could independently cause his cancer | TEMA: evidence insufficient; exposure unproven and ALJ erred in weighing evidence | Held: Yes. Substantial evidence supported ALJ’s finding that plant conditions could cause MOCA exposure and that exposure could have induced Miller’s cancer; ALJ’s credibility findings permissible. |
| Whether KRS 342.315/342.316 required a university medical evaluation in every occupational-disease case (and thus mandated a particular evaluator be appointed) | Miller: ALJ may decide on the evidence if university evaluation is unavailable; statutes permit but do not compel referral | TEMA/Ct. of Appeals: statute/regulation requires commissioner to produce a university (or commissioner-chosen) evaluator; unavailability required further action and precluded decision without such evaluation | Held: Statutes use permissive language re: referral; commissioner fulfilled obligation to contract and attempted referrals; ALJ may decide when university evaluation is impossible and record otherwise supports decision. |
| Whether the Commissioner and ALJ complied with administrative regulations requiring scheduling of evaluations | Miller: Commissioner attempted scheduling; lack of available university evaluators justified proceeding | TEMA: commissioner did not satisfy mandatory regulatory duty; Court of Appeals said insufficient | Held: Commissioner made good-faith attempts; regulation’s mandate was followed in substance and inability of universities to participate did not bar adjudication. |
| Effect of absent university evaluation on presumptive weight rule | Miller: absence does not preclude decision on other substantial evidence | TEMA: absence deprived ALJ of rebuttable presumption and required re-referral | Held: Presumptive weight applies if a university evaluation is performed, but absence does not prevent ALJ from deciding based on other substantial evidence; ALJ may reject university opinion when present if reasons stated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vessels v. Brown-Forman Distillers Corp., 793 S.W.2d 795 (Ky. 1990) (procedural right of appeal to Supreme Court)
- Bowerman v. Black Equip. Co., 297 S.W.3d 858 (Ky. App. 2009) (de novo review of legal questions in workers' compensation)
- LKLP CAC Inc. v. Fleming, 520 S.W.3d 382 (Ky. 2017) (ALJ as sole factfinder on credibility and weight)
- Childers v. Hackney's Coal Co., 337 S.W.2d 680 (Ky. 1960) (statute requires exposure that could independently cause disease)
- Smyzer v. B.F. Goodrich Chemical Co., 474 S.W.2d 367 (Ky. 1971) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Whittaker v. Rowland, 998 S.W.2d 479 (Ky. 1999) (appellate standard when claimant prevailed before ALJ)
- Ira A. Watson Dep't Store v. Hamilton, 34 S.W.3d 48 (Ky. 2000) (limits on overturning ALJ credibility findings)
- Magic Coal Co. v. Fox, 19 S.W.3d 88 (Ky. 2000) (ALJ may reject university evaluator's findings but must state reasons)