Ronald Malam v. State of Missouri, Department of Corrections
2016 Mo. LEXIS 210
| Mo. | 2016Background
- Ronald Malam, a corrections officer, performed a takedown of an uncooperative inmate at work and soon developed shortness of breath, hemoptysis, and a hypertensive crisis that left him unconscious for a week.
- Treating physicians noted minimal external trauma (a bruised/abraded knee) and diagnosed hypertensive crisis; some doctors suggested trauma might have precipitated medical processes but found no chest trauma or pulmonary contusion on imaging.
- Two consulting experts testified: Dr. Anne‑Marie Puricelli (for employer) concluded preexisting conditions were the prevailing cause; Dr. Brent Koprivica (for Malam) concluded the takedown was the direct, proximate, and prevailing factor precipitating the crisis.
- The ALJ relied on Dr. Puricelli and denied benefits; the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission found an accident occurred but rejected Malam’s proof that it was the "prevailing factor," discounting Puricelli for factual errors and finding Koprivica’s wording equivocal.
- The court majority reversed the commission, holding Koprivica’s testimony — read in context — clearly identified the workplace event as the prevailing factor precipitating the hypertensive crisis; the case was remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the workplace accident was the "prevailing factor" causing Malam's hypertensive crisis | Malam: Dr. Koprivica established the takedown was the direct, proximate, and prevailing factor precipitating the crisis | Employer: Preexisting cardiometabolic disease was the prevailing cause; Koprivica's language was equivocal and many treating doctors found no trauma-related injury | Court: Reversed the commission — Koprivica’s testimony, read in context, identified the accident as the prevailing factor; remanded |
| Whether the commission’s credibility/interpretation of expert wording should be upheld | Malam: Commission over-parsed phrasing and improperly treated "precipitating" as excluding "prevailing" | Employer: Commission properly evaluated experts and could find Koprivica equivocal given statutory distinction between "precipitating" and "prevailing" | Court: Majority held the commission misapplied the evidence and undervalued Koprivica’s plain meaning; dissent would defer and affirm |
Key Cases Cited
- Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. banc 2003) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on whole record)
- Pierce v. BSC, Inc., 207 S.W.3d 619 (Mo. banc 2006) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
- Treasurer of State–Custodian of Second Injury Fund v. Witte, 414 S.W.3d 455 (Mo. banc 2013) (deference to commission on factual findings and credibility)
- Maness v. City of De Soto, 421 S.W.3d 532 (Mo. App. 2014) (determination whether accident is prevailing factor is factual)
- Gordon v. City of Ellisville, 268 S.W.3d 454 (Mo. App. 2008) (medical causation requires expert testimony)
- Mayfield v. Brown Shoe Co., 941 S.W.2d 31 (Mo. App. 1997) (importance of context and wording in expert testimony)