Seifner v. Treasurer of the State-Custodian of the Second Injury Fund
362 S.W.3d 59
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Seifner filed a workers' compensation claim against the Second Injury Fund for a thoracic injury from repetitive exposure on the job on the production line.
- He previously settled separate claims with his employer for 16.5%, 18%, and 21% of the body as a whole for prior injuries (elbow, neck/shoulder, neck respectively).
- The Fund did not participate in the employer settlements, and no party signed the Fund to those stipulations.
- Dr. James Stuckmeyer opined that light duty work contributed to scapular thoracic dysfunction with 12.5% PPD, but his credibility was questioned due to lack of factual detail about Seifner’s hours and duties.
- The ALJ denied Seifner’s claim for lack of credible medical causation evidence; the Commission affirmed.
- On appeal, Seifner argued collateral estoppel precluded relitigation of the last-injury disability percentage and that the Commission erred by disregarding uncontradicted medical causation testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collateral estoppel preclusion | Seifner argues Totten controls; Fund is bound by the last-injury settlement. | Fund was not a party to the settlement; no privity; settlement is not a merits judgment. | Collateral estoppel does not apply; Fund not bound and can litigate last-injury issues. |
| Credibility and consequence of Dr. Stuckmeyer's testimony | Fund must defend causation with medical evidence; cannot substitute its own opinion. | Commission can disbelieve uncontradicted medical testimony if credible reasons exist. | Commission properly discounted Dr. Stuckmeyer's causation testimony due to credibility impeachments; no error in not adopting his causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Totten v. Treasurer of State, 116 S.W.3d 624 (Mo.App. E.D. 2003) (Fund not bound by employer settlement; no party consent implies collateral estoppel does not apply)
- Conley v. Treasurer of Mo., 999 S.W.2d 269 (Mo.App. E.D. 1999) (settlements admissible but not binding where Fund not a party)
- Malan v. Huesemann, 942 S.W.2d 424 (Mo.App. W.D. 1997) (consent orders based on stipulations do not constitute judgments on the merits)
- Grubbs v. Treasurer of Mo., 298 S.W.3d 907 (Mo.App. E.D. 2009) (employer and Fund are separate; claims against them are separate proceedings)
- Angus v. Second Injury Fund, 328 S.W.3d 294 (Mo.App. W.D. 2010) (courts may not substitute own medical opinion when expert testimony exists; credibility analysis)