TERRY LANKFORD, Employee, CAROL LANKFORD, WIDOW, Claimant/Dependent/Respondent v. NEWTON COUNTY, Employer/Appellant, and TREASURER OF MISSOURI AS CUSTODIAN OF SECOND INJURY FUND, Additional Party.
517 S.W.3d 577
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Terry Lankford worked ~21 years for Newton County, most recently as a prosecutor’s investigator; he frequently took smoke breaks on the courthouse roof where pigeon droppings accumulated.
- In 2002 he was exposed to anhydrous ammonia and later diagnosed with COPD; in December 2007 he underwent a right upper lobectomy to remove a nodule that cultured positive for pathogens (Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC/MAI) and possibly Cryptococcus).
- Post‑surgery complications included a stroke during an induced coma, producing severe disability; Lankford left work in December 2007 and died in 2012 from complications of pneumonia and COPD.
- Lankford filed a workers’ compensation claim alleging occupational disease from pigeon droppings; after his death his wife Carol was substituted as claimant.
- Medical opinions conflicted: Dr. Parmet (claimant’s expert) tied the infections to rooftop pigeon exposure and opined occupational exposure was the prevailing factor; defense experts conceded MAI/MAC existed but attributed causation primarily to smoking and ubiquitous environmental exposure.
- The ALJ found (and the Commission affirmed) that Lankford contracted an occupational disease (MAI) from workplace pigeon exposure, that exposure was the prevailing factor causing his condition and disability, and awarded permanent total disability benefits (paid to Mrs. Lankford).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the "unequal exposure" rule in § 287.020.3 applies to occupational disease claims | Lankford: § 287.067 (as amended) governs occupational disease; no unequal‑exposure requirement applies | Newton County: § 287.020.3’s unequal‑exposure test should apply to deny compensability | Court: § 287.067 (post‑2005 amendment) governs occupational disease claims independently; unequal‑exposure requirement from § 287.020.3 does not apply |
| Whether Lankford’s disease arose out of and in the course of employment (sufficient evidence of occupational exposure/prevailing factor) | Lankford: roof smoking breaks and frequent work‑related contacts on roof produced greater risk of exposure to pigeon droppings; medical opinion supports prevailing‑factor causation | Newton County: exposure was not part of job duties, roof breaks were personal, and organism is ubiquitous so workplace not the prevailing source | Court: substantial competent evidence supports Commission’s factual findings (roof exposure, persuasive expert testimony); award not against overwhelming weight of evidence |
| Whether Commission properly credited claimant’s expert over defense experts on causation | Lankford: Commission entitled to credit Dr. Parmet’s causation opinion that workplace exposure was the prevailing factor | Newton County: defense experts were more reliable; MAI/MAC is common and smoking explains condition; Dr. Parmet relied on incorrect assumptions about roof conditions | Court: credibility and weight are for the Commission; it permissibly credited Dr. Parmet and the record contains competent, substantial evidence supporting the finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Johme v. St. John’s Mercy Healthcare, 366 S.W.3d 504 (Mo. banc 2012) (discusses unequal‑exposure analysis under § 287.020.3)
- Miller v. Mo. Highway & Transp. Comm’n, 287 S.W.3d 671 (Mo. banc 2009) (unequal‑exposure precedent under accidental‑injury framework)
- KCP & L Greater Missouri Operations Co. v. Cook, 353 S.W.3d 14 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (holding § 287.067’s post‑2005 amendment created a standalone standard for occupational disease)
- Amesquita v. Gilster‑Mary Lee Corp., 408 S.W.3d 293 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (similar conclusion on occupational disease standard)
- Malam v. Dep’t of Corr., 492 S.W.3d 926 (Mo. banc 2016) (standard of review for Commission factual findings)