Listen to this article

Reversing the denial of a claim based on work-related injuries, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District held the evidence demonstrated the claimant had a permanent total disability (PTD) in an unanimous opinion on July 30.

James Eckardt began working as an aircraft mechanic in 1976.

Over the course of more than 40 years of employment in the airline industry, he sustained seven work injuries to various body parts, including his right knee, left knee, left arm and right shoulder, as well as chronic, severe bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.  Eckardt had multiple surgeries as a result of the injuries.

He continued to work through 2015, when he was struck by an open door of a moving van.

A 2018 independent medical exam (IME) detailed the synergistic effects of all of Eckardt’s injuries and stated that “it was basically impossible for him to perform his job duties.”

The doctor explained that the combination of Eckardt’s disabilities created a substantially greater disability than the sum of each separate injury and opined that he was permanently and totally disabled.

In November 2022, the St. Louis Division of Worker’s Compensation administrative law judge (ALJ) conducted a hearing on Eckardt’s workers’ compensation claim and issued an award in his favor for PTD benefits against the Second Injury Fund.

The Fund appealed and the Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denied Fund benefits.

Eckardt appealed and the court reversed.

It was undisputed on appeal that Eckardt was permanently and totally disabled, with the sole issue whether his PTD was compensable by the Fund.

To satisfy the requirements of Section 287.220.2, Eckardt needed to have at least one qualifying preexisting disability that was medically documented equal to at least 50 weeks of PPD and satisfying one of the four listed criteria in Section 287.220.3(2)(a)a(i)-(iv) and show he sustained a subsequent compensable work-related injury that resulted in a permanent total disability (PTD) when combined with the preexisting disability.

Eckardt told the court the commission ignored the overwhelming weight of the evidence because the uncontested evidence established that he was PTD as a direct result of his compensable primary injury in combination with his qualifying preexisting medical disabilities.

The court agreed.

“Claimant here presented evidence of six preexisting injuries, in addition to the primary injury, and all of those preexisting injuries were found to qualify as at least 50 weeks of PPD, except for one,” the court wrote. “In fact, even absent inclusion of the right shoulder, the qualifying preexisting disabilities totaled more than 400 weeks — or eight times the 50-week minimum.”

The IME determination that Eckardt was permanently and totally disabled did not rely on his preexisting non-qualifying right shoulder injury, as all of his other disabilities sufficiently combined to cause the PTD absent the right should injury, the court said.

“Accordingly, we find the Commission erred when it denied Claimant Fund benefits because its determination was not supported by sufficient competent evidence,” the court said. “Instead, the evidence supported the statutory requirements for Fund liability because Claimant demonstrated he had sustained a ‘subsequent compensable work-related injury, that, when combined with the preexisting disability, … results in a permanent total disability.’”

The court reversed with instructions to the commission to grant Eckardt’s PTD benefits.

John A. Lally of Rhodes & Lally in St. Louis, who represented Eckardt, said “the statute was created for a guy like [him].”

“The basic intent of the statute is to help people who have disabilities or have a prior injury, work related or not, to be hired and to work,” he said. “Jim Eckardt worked for over 40 years, through several significant injuries, and he kept coming back and coming back until his last injury knocked him out of the work force. The ALJ found in his favor and the Commission reversed on a very narrow reading of the opinions in this area of law, but the Court of Appeals took a more big picture approach to the interpretation of the Second Injury Fund.”

St. Louis attorney Mathew Kinkade, III, who represented the Fund, declined to comment on the decision.

The case is Eckardt v. Treasurer of Missouri, No. ED112132.