JOAN KNUTTER, Employee by MICHAEL KNUTTER, Claimant-Respondent v. AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE, Employer-Appellant , 578 S.W.3d 824 ( 2019 )

JOAN KNUTTER, )
Deceased Employee by )
MICHAEL KNUTTER, )
)
Claimant-Respondent, )
)
vs. ) No. SD35644
)
AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE, ) Filed: May 13, 2019
)
Employer-Appellant. )
APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
AFFIRMED
This is an appeal from an award of compensation in the amount of $43,160.00
entered by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission ("the Commission") in favor
of Michael Knutter ("Claimant"). Claimant's mother, Joan Knutter ("Employee"),
worked for American National Insurance ("Employer"). She broke her ankle when she
slipped and fell on ice outside of her workplace on March 25, 2013. On May 9, 2013,
Employee died following a saddle pulmonary embolism, which related to the immobility
that resulted from her workplace injury. Employee's husband, Karl Knutter
("Husband"), asserted a claim for dependent benefits. On July 17, 2015, Husband died.
After Husband's death, Employee and Husband's son, Michael Knutter ("Claimant"),
was substituted as the personal representative of Husband.
Employer raises four points on appeal. Points 1-3 challenge the award as not
based on sufficient competent evidence. Point 4 challenges the basis of Claimant's
substitution for Husband. Because there was sufficient competent evidence to support
the Commission's award, and because Employer's specific challenge to the basis for
Claimant's substitution was not raised below, we affirm.
Standard of Review
"On appeal, this Court reviews the Commission's decision to determine if it is
'supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record.'" Johme v.
St. John's Mercy Healthcare, 366 S.W.3d 504, 509 (Mo. banc 2012) (quoting Mo.
Const. Art. V, § 18). This Court:
may modify, reverse, remand for rehearing, or set aside the award upon
any of the following grounds and no other:
(1) That the [C]ommission acted without or in excess of its powers;
(2) That the award was procured by fraud;
(3) That the facts found by the [C]ommission do not support
the award; [or]
(4) That there was not sufficient competent evidence in the
record to warrant the making of the award.
§ 287.495.1.1
This Court reviews questions of law de novo, but gives deference to the
Commission on issues of fact, credibility determinations, and the weight the
Commission afforded to conflicting evidence. Malam v. State, Dept. of Corrs., 492
S.W.3d 926, 928 (Mo. banc 2016). When medical causation is not within common
experience or knowledge, it must be established by scientific or medical evidence that
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to RSMo Cum. Supp. (2013).
2
shows the relationship between the claimant's condition and the asserted cause.
Beatrice v. Curators of Univ. of Mo., 438 S.W.3d 426, 435 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014).
Medical opinion testimony as to causation is competent, and can be viewed as
substantial evidence. Id. This Court affords the Commission deference "in resolving
conflicting medical testimony given by various expert witnesses." Cole v. Alan Wire
Co., 521 S.W.3d 308, 310 (Mo. App. S.D. 2017).
Background
On March 25, 2013, Employee, while in the course and scope of her employment,
fractured her ankle when she slipped and fell on ice outside of her workplace. Initially,
Employee was given a protective splint and crutches to assist with her non-weight
bearing instructions. On April 1, 2013, Employee saw an orthopedic physician, Dr.
Robert Bennett ("Dr. Bennett"). Dr. Bennett's notes indicated that Employee had
"slipped and put some pressure on [her ankle] since the time of injury" so he elected to
treat her with a short-leg, non-walking cast and a wheelchair was also prescribed. On
May 3, 2013, Employee again saw Dr. Bennett. He noted that Employee's previous cast
was "quite loose as her swelling ha[d] decreased" and her fracture was healing well.
Employee received a new short-leg cast, and Dr. Bennett scheduled a follow-up
appointment for two weeks later.
On May 9, 2013, Employee experienced shortness of breath while she was sitting
on the toilet, and was transported to the Emergency Department by ambulance. She
suffered a saddle pulmonary embolism and died the same day. Husband timely asserted
a claim for dependent benefits as a relative by marriage of a deceased employee.
However, while the underlying claim was still pending, Husband died on July 17, 2015.
On July 31, 2015, Claimant filed a "Motion for Substitution of Party and Suggestion of
3
Death." After oral argument before the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"), Claimant's
motion was granted and Claimant was substituted as Husband's "only surviving son and
personal representative to his estate[.]"
During the subsequent hearing on the claim, the ALJ reviewed reports from four
different expert doctors as to whether Employee's ankle fracture led to the pulmonary
embolism that caused her death. Claimant's experts, Dr. Mitch Mullins ("Dr. M.
Mullins") and Dr. Thomas Wright ("Dr. Wright"), opined that Employee's ankle injury
and resulting immobility led to her death by pulmonary embolism. By contrast,
Employer's experts, Dr. Randall Cross ("Dr. Cross") and Dr. John Randolph Mullins
("Dr. J. Mullins"), opined that the exact cause of Employee's pulmonary embolism was
unknown and her death could not be directly connected to her ankle fracture.
The ALJ found in favor of Employer. The Commission, however, reversed the
ALJ's decision. In its findings of fact, the Commission stated:
We do not dismiss the ALJ's observation that because there was no
autopsy, no medical records document the specific location of
[Employee's] blood clot or deep vein thrombosis. However, we disagree
with the ALJ's conclusion that it is purely speculative to link [Employee's]
work-related right ankle injury and her fatal saddle pulmonary. Neither
Dr. Cross' identification of a multitude of other risk factors based [on
Employee's] medical history and hospital records, nor Dr. J. Mullins'
inability to find examples in medical literature of individuals who had
ankle fractures and experienced onset of pulmonary embolus while sitting
on the toilet, convince us that [Employee's] fatal pulmonary embolism
following forty-five days of virtually total immobility due to confinement
to a wheelchair immobilization was purely coincidental. We find, based
on the credible expert medical opinions of Dr. Wright and [Dr.
M. Mullins], that the prevailing cause of [Employee's] death
was her March 25, 2013, traumatic ankle injury and
subsequent immobilization, resulting in venous stasis and
ultimately causing her fatal saddle pulmonary embolism.
4
(emphasis added). The Commission awarded Claimant death benefits due and owed at
the time of Husband's death in the amount of $43,160.00. The Commission also upheld
the substitution of Claimant in place of Husband.2 This appeal followed.
Discussion
Employer's points 1-3 contend that the Commission's decision lacks sufficient
competent evidence pursuant to § 287.495.1(4). Specifically, Employer's point 1
contends there is insufficient evidence that Employee was "virtually totally immobilized"
for 45 days prior to her death, including the time between her May 3 appointment with
Dr. Bennett and her death on May 9. Employer's point 2 alleges there is a lack of
evidence that Employee's pulmonary embolism originated in her lower extremities that
were purportedly immobilized. Employer's point 3 contends there was no expert
testimony that Employee's injury was the "prevailing factor" in causing her death, or in
the alternative, that the expert testimony the Commission relied on was "inadequate and
not based on sufficient facts and data."
By claiming that the Commission's award is not supported by competent and
substantial evidence according to § 287.495.1(4), Employer triggers a specific analytical
process, whereby Employer must:
1. Identify a factual proposition necessary to sustain the Commission's
result;
2. Marshal all evidence in the record supporting that factual proposition,
subject to the Commission's authorized factual and credibility
determinations, explicit or implicit, and viewing the record objectively
where there were no explicit or implicit findings;
2 The parties stipulated Employee was underpaid temporary total disability benefits in the amount of
$116.48. The Commission awarded these benefits to Claimant and they are not in dispute in this action.
5
3. Demonstrate why the evidence from the second step lacks sufficient
probative force on the issues, such that the Commission could not
have reasonably believed the factual proposition set forth in step one.
Robinson v. Loxcreen Co., Inc., Nos. SD35649 & SD35650 Consolidated, 2019 WL
1614592, at *3 (Mo. App. S.D. Apr. 16, 2019); Nichols v. Belleview R-III Sch. Dist.,
528 S.W.3d 918, 927-28 (Mo. App. S.D. 2017). "A section 287.495.1(4) challenge
succeeds only in the demonstrated absence of sufficient competent substantial evidence;
evidence contrary to the award of the Commission, regardless of quantity or quality, is
'irrelevant.'" Nichols, 528 S.W.3d at 922 (quoting Hornbeck v. Spectra Painting,
Inc., 370 S.W.3d 624, 629 (Mo. banc 2012)). "[A]dherence to this analytical formula is
mandatory . . . because it reflects the underlying criteria necessary for a successful
challenge—the absence of any such criteria, even without a court-formulated sequence,
dooms an appellant's challenge." Id. at 928 (emphasis added).
Point 1 illustrates Employer's failure in these regards. Employer admits that "as
long as a patient remained immobilized" she would be at increased risk of embolism
from the immobilized area, yet disregards the report of its own expert, Dr. Cross,
acknowledging that Employee "had been in a wheelchair during much of the 45 days
from the time of her ankle fracture until the day of her demise." Claimant's expert, Dr.
M. Mullins, expressly relied on this in reaching his causation opinion that was credited
by the Commission. Employer's point 2 argument suffers similar failings.
For the Commission's award to be reversed on a § 287.495.1(4) challenge, there
must be an absence of sufficient competent evidence supporting it. Nichols, 528
S.W.3d at 922. Here, "[r]ather than fully accounting for all supportive competent
evidence (step 2), and then showing why that evidence lacks sufficient probative value
(step 3)," id. at 928, Employer minimizes and undervalues the evidence that supports
6
the Commission's award. In this way, Employer "effectively ignor[es] proof" that
supports the award. Customer Eng'g Servs. v. Odom, SD35638, 2019 WL 1109672,
at *2 (Mo. App. S.D. Mar. 11, 2019). This strips Employer's "argument of any analytical
or persuasive value." Id.; see Jordan v. USF Holland Motor Freight, Inc., 383
S.W.3d 93, 95 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012). Employer's points 1 and 2 are denied.
As to Employer's point 3, Employer references the statements made by Dr.
Wright and Dr. M. Mullins that connect Employee's ankle injury with her ultimate
death, but deems the words these doctors used to be insufficient to meet the "prevailing
factor" standard under § 287.020.3(1). Employer also criticizes the opinions and
underlying methodology of Dr. Wright and Dr. M. Mullins.
"The determination of whether an accident is the 'prevailing factor' causing a
claimant's condition is an inherently factual one." Malam, 492 S.W.3d at 928. Section
287.020.3(1) provides:
In this chapter the term "injury" is hereby defined to be an injury which
has arisen out of and in the course of employment. An injury by accident
is compensable only if the accident was the prevailing factor in causing
both the resulting medical condition and disability. "The prevailing
factor" is defined to be the primary factor, in relation to any
other factor, causing both the resulting medical condition and
disability.
§ 287.020.3(1) (emphasis added).
The argument that a medical expert must use specific technical language to
interpret § 287.020.3 has been rejected by the Supreme Court of Missouri. See Malam,
492 S.W.3d at 929. In Malam, the employee's expert had opined that a work incident
was the "direct, proximate and prevailing factor precipitating [the employee's health]
crisis." Id. at 927. The Commission deemed this terminology insufficient to meet the
"prevailing factor" standard. Id. at 927-28. The Supreme Court of Missouri rejected
7
the Commission's "overly technical and parsed analysis of [the expert's]
testimony that overlooks the plain meaning of what he said." Id. at 929 (emphasis
added). The words a medical expert uses are important "not so much in and of
themselves, but as a reflection of what impression such witness wishes to impart." Id.
(quoting Mayfield v. Brown Shoe Co., 941 S.W.2d 31, 36 (Mo. App. S.D. 1997)).
The Supreme Court of Missouri in Malam concluded that the expert's opinion should
be "[r]ead in context" for its "plain meaning," and under this analysis, the expert's
testimony met the prevailing factor standard. 492 S.W.3d at 929.
Here, the opinions of Dr. Wright and Dr. M. Mullins – read in context for their
plain meaning – show their respective opinions that Employee's ankle injury was the
prevailing factor that caused her pulmonary embolism. For example, Dr. Wright stated
that the "proximal cause of [Employee's] saddle pulmonary embolism (PE) was directly
the result of her immobility secondary to [the] fracture of her right ankle[;]" that her
immobility was the "tipping point and proximate cause" of the pulmonary embolism;
and that the ankle fracture was the "inciting cause" of the embolism.
Dr. Wright discussed the risk of pulmonary embolism for the general population
and compared that to Employee's risk factors. Dr. Wright noted that, for Employee, "the
key precipitating event was her fall and ankle facture." (emphasis added). Employee's
lack of ambulation "is the single most important risk factor mathematically and the final
contributing factor" to Employee's embolism. By his calculations, Employee had a
"52.2% risk of [deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism] if she remained immobile
for greater than several days."3
3Dr. Wright submitted a supplemental report in response to Dr. J. Mullins's criticisms of his
methodology, where Dr. Wright concluded that he stood by his previous opinion and his "math" regarding
8
Similarly, Claimant's other expert, Dr. M. Mullins, stated that: ''[t]he cause of
the blood clot was from venous stasis from immobilization from the ankle fracture" and
that "it is within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the ankle fracture lead
[sic] to venous stasis which ultimately led to a saddle embolism." He noted that
"[al]though other factors are possible, it is not reasonable to consider them with the
weight that a recent trauma has in the development of pulmonary emboli."
The "plain meaning" of the opinions of Dr. Wright and Dr. M. Mullins, when read
in context, was that Employee's ankle injury and resulting immobilization was the
prevailing factor that ultimately led to her death. The Commission found these experts
to be credible and relied on their opinions when it found that Employee's ankle injury
and subsequent immobilization was the "prevailing factor causing her venous stasis,
which led to a saddle pulmonary embolism and death[.]" As in Malam, we do not
require an expert to use "overly technical" words to meet the "prevailing factor"
standard. 492 S.W.3d at 929; see also Treasurer of the State of Mo. v. Majors,
506 S.W.3d 348, 353 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (rejecting claim that "'magic words' like
'certify' and 'permanent and total disability'" were necessary rather than the "clear and
plain import" of expert's testimony).
Furthermore, as to Employer's argument that the opinions of Drs. Wright and M.
Mullins were "not based on sufficient facts or data[,]" we give deference to the
Commission when it resolves conflicts among the medical testimony from different
expert witnesses. Cole, 521 S.W.3d at 310. Once a doctor's opinion is admitted without
objection, as here for the opinions of both Dr. Wright and Dr. M. Mullins, it is "up to the
Employee's fatal pulmonary embolism. The Commission ultimately deemed the opinion of Dr. Wright to
be credible.
9
Commission to assess the credibility of the doctor's testimony and determine what
weight to give that evidence." Lacy v. Fed. Mogul, 278 S.W.3d 691, 700 (Mo. App.
S.D. 2009). In this case the Commission found these doctors to be credible and relied
on their opinions. The Commission's award, therefore, was supported by sufficient
competent evidence. Employer's point 3 is denied.
As to point 4, Employer now argues that the Commission erred under
§ 287.495.1(1) and (4) in that it improperly allowed Claimant to be substituted for
Husband when there was no evidence that Claimant had opened an estate on behalf of
Husband and had been properly named Husband's "personal representative" for
purposes of § 287.230. Based on the record provided, this was not the theory that
Employer asserted below.
After Husband's death in July 2015, Claimant filed a "Motion for Substitution of
Party and Suggestion of Death." Employer filed written objections, stating that
Employer objected to this substitution because it did not "believe that Section 287.230
RSMo., provides for such substitution when the alleged dependent dies rather than the
employee." Further, Employer stated that "there is no provision for the substitution of
alleged dependents in the workers' compensation law such that [Claimant] can take over
the benefits alleged by [Husband] as dependent of [Employee.]" The ALJ entered an
Order with findings and substituted Claimant as Husband's "only surviving son and
personal representative to his estate[.]"4
4The ALJ's order references an oral argument on this issue heard on September 17, 2015, but this
argument is not in our record.
10
In its appeal to the Commission, Employer asked for the Commission's review on
"[w]hether there was an appropriate substitution of [Claimant] for [Husband]."5 The
Commission considered the ALJ's Order regarding the substitution of Claimant for
Husband and upheld the substitution.
Employer has now objected to Claimant's substitution by stating essentially that
there should have been a probate estate established and a personal representative
appointed through the probate court. Employer's appellate brief states that proper
procedures for determining Claimant's appointment were not followed in that Claimant
failed to produce issuance of letters of administration or "evidence that he
administratively opened an estate for [Husband] or that he was properly appointed his
personal representative."
Nothing in the record shows that Employer's argument regarding the proof
necessary for substitution of Claimant as Husband's personal representative under
§ 287.230 was raised below. "It has been a longstanding rule that issues that could have
been, but were not, raised previously before the Commission cannot be litigated on
appeal." Spradling v. Treasurer of State, 415 S.W.3d 126, 134 (Mo. App. S.D.
2013). These issues are not preserved for review. Id; see also Archer v. City of
Cameron, 460 S.W.3d 370, 377 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015). Since Employer's argument
was not preserved, Employer cannot now raise this matter on appeal. Employer’s point
4 is denied.
5Both parties requested to file briefs and orally argue the case before the Commission. We have no record
of these arguments.
11
Decision
The Commission's award is affirmed.
MARY W. SHEFFIELD, J. – OPINION AUTHOR
JEFFREY W. BATES, J. – CONCURS
DANIEL E. SCOTT, J. – CONCURS
12