Thompson v. ICI American Holding
347 S.W.3d 624
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Thompson, a National Starch mechanic, was injured October 2007 while replacing belts on a blending blower.
- The belts were being replaced after power was cut, but reverse air flow continued, pulling his hand toward a moving pulley.
- Thompson did not fully lock out or de-energize the equipment and attempted to stop the belt with a broom handle, which broke and caused the injury.
- National Starch asserted Thompson's injury resulted from his failure to follow Lock-Out Rules; the ALJ awarded benefits with a 37.5% reduction under § 287.120.5 and a credit for prior benefits.
- The Commission affirmed the award as modified; Thompson appealed claiming error in the 37.5% reduction and related calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Thompson's failure to follow Lock-Out Rules causally relate to the injury? | Thompson argues the belt’s tension, not the rule violation, caused the injury. | National Starch contends the injury occurred due to violation of Lock-Out Rules. | Yes; the rule violation was a proximate cause supported by evidence. |
| Did Thompson have actual knowledge that Lock-Out Rules applied to the reverse air flow in this situation? | Thompson did not knowingly violate the rules. | Thompson was aware via training and practice that the rules apply to all energy sources, including reverse air flow. | Substantial evidence supports Thompson's knowledge of applicability. |
| Did National Starch make a reasonable effort to compel compliance with the Lock-Out Rules? | The training and warnings were insufficient to demonstrate reasonable efforts. | National Starch trained employees repeatedly and warned of discipline for noncompliance. | Yes; substantial evidence supports reasonable efforts under § 287.120.5. |
| Is § 287.120.5's 25–50% employee reduction constitutional under equal protection? | Disparate treatment between employee reductions and employer increases is irrational. | Rational basis review suffices; the schemes have different aims and incentives. | Rational basis; no equal protection violation. |
| Was the 37.5% reduction correctly calculated? | There was a $300 arithmetic error in calculating the reduction. | Calculation was correct as applied to the award. | The reduction was miscalculated by $300; award amended to reflect correct net unpaid benefits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawrence v. Anheuser Busch Cos., 310 S.W.3d 248 (Mo.App. E.D. 2010) (review of Commission findings with deference to credibility; lawful standards for substantial evidence)
- Akers v. Warson Garden Apts., 961 S.W.2d 50 (Mo. 1998) (causation and statutory interpretation in workers' compensation context)
- Sundermeyer v. SSM Reg'l Health Servs., 271 S.W.3d 552 (Mo. banc 2008) (intervening causes and comparative fault principles in workers' compensation)
- Bailey v. Phelps Cnty. Reg'l Med. Ctr., 328 S.W.3d 770 (Mo.App. S.D. 2010) (credibility and weight in reviewing ALJ/Commission findings)