Stephen Smith, Dorothy Smith v. Capital Region Medical Center
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1453
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Stephen Smith worked as a medical laboratory technologist at Capital Region Medical Center from 1969–2006, routinely handling blood and tissue during a period when safety precautions (gloves, needle-reporting, face shields) were not consistently used.
- Stephen was diagnosed with hepatitis C in 1991 and died in 2007 of complications from hepatitis C; his wife Dorothy Smith substituted as claimant in a workers’ compensation claim alleging occupational disease.
- Expert evidence conflicted: Dr. Allen Parmet (claimant) opined occupational exposure (needle sticks, splashes, pipetting) was the most probable cause; Dr. Bruce Bacon (employer) opined the 1970 blood transfusion likely caused infection.
- An Administrative Law Judge and the Commission initially denied benefits for lack of direct proof of workplace exposure; this court reversed in Smith I, holding a claimant need only show a probability that working conditions caused the disease, not a specific documented exposure.
- On remand the Commission reweighed the existing evidence (no new evidence), found Dr. Parmet more persuasive, concluded employment was a substantial factor in causing hepatitis C, and awarded benefits; Capital Region appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimant must prove specific documented workplace exposure to an occupational disease | Smith: Not required; medical evidence establishing a probability that work caused disease suffices | Capital Region: Claimant must show specific evidence that hepatitis C was present in workplace or a discrete exposure | Court: Reiterated Smith I — probability via medical testimony suffices; law of the case applies |
| Whether Commission's award was against the weight of the evidence | Smith: Commission properly applied Smith I and reasonably credited claimant's expert | Capital Region: Award is unsupported; Commission ignored precedent and misapplied burden of persuasion | Held: Commission acted within discretion, credited Parmet over Bacon, award not against weight of evidence |
| Proper allocation of burden (production vs. persuasion) in occupational disease claims | Smith: Met burden of production; Commission on remand properly resolved burden of persuasion | Capital Region: Argued prior opinion did not decide burden of persuasion and claimant failed to meet it | Held: Smith I addressed burden of production; on remand Commission weighed evidence and found claimant met burden of persuasion |
| Whether law of the case bars relitigation of legal standard for causation | Smith: Prior appellate ruling governs standard on remand | Capital Region: Seeks de novo re-evaluation of same legal issue | Held: Law of the case applies; none of its exceptions (mistaken fact, manifest injustice, change in law) apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Capital Region Med. Ctr., 412 S.W.3d 252 (Mo. App. W.D.) (establishing that a claimant need only present medical evidence of a probability that working conditions caused an occupational disease)
- Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. banc) (standard for appellate review of workers’ compensation awards)
- Hornbeck v. Spectra Painting, Inc., 370 S.W.3d 624 (Mo. banc) (deference to Commission’s credibility determinations)
- Walton v. City of Berkeley, 223 S.W.3d 126 (Mo. banc) (law-of-the-case doctrine governs successive appeals)
- Lake v. Levy, 390 S.W.3d 885 (Mo. App. W.D.) (textual interpretation presumes legislature intended each word to have meaning)
- Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189 (Mo. banc) (discussion on what a claim that a judgment is against the weight of the evidence presupposes)
- Abt v. Miss. Lime Co., 420 S.W.3d 689 (Mo. App. E.D.) (interpretation of remand types and mandate use)
- Williams v. Kimes, 25 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. banc) (law of the case governs successive adjudications)
- Jenkins v. Jenkins, 406 S.W.3d 919 (Mo. App. W.D.) (exceptions to law-of-the-case doctrine)