Missouri Worker Fails to Connect Tinnitus to Work-Related Brawl

In a decision illustrating the broad latitude given to Missouri’s Labor & Industrial Relations Commission in judging the weight of medical evidence, a panel of a state appellate court recently affirmed a Commission decision concluding that a supervisor’s medical condition, in the form of tinnitus, was not caused by a work-related brawl that resulted from the supervisor’s crude characterization of a subordinate’s work [Schlereth v. Aramark Uniform Servs., 2019 Mo. App. LEXIS 1766 (Nov. 12, 2019)].

Background

In October 2014, the supervisor was told that several subordinates had left a large batch of linen soaking wet on the production line when it should have been spun dry. The supervisor reprimanded two subordinates, telling them what they did was “stupid.” In response, one of the subordinates spit in the supervisor’s face and punched the supervisor repeatedly about the face and head, causing him to become dazed and fall and hit his head against a washing machine. Both the supervisor and the subordinate were promptly terminated that day for fighting. The supervisor did not return to work and subsequently began to receive social security disability benefits.

Three years later, the supervisor filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits contending, in relevant part, that he had experienced ringing in both of his ears after the work-related fight and that his symptoms still persisted. At a hearing, he testified the ringing in his ears made it difficult to concentrate and fall asleep.

The employer introduced evidence, both in the form of expert medical opinion and in the cross-examination of the supervisor at the hearing, that the supervisor had not mentioned any ringing in his ears when he completed his Social Security disability application, nor had he mentioned it to any physician until at least one year after the fight.

Supervisor’s Medical Evidence

The supervisor presented expert medical evidence in which the physician diagnosed the supervisor with a mild traumatic brain injury and resulting chronic bilateral tinnitus. The doctor also opined that the work-related fight was the prevailing factor in causing the supervisor’s mild traumatic brain injury and resulting chronic bilateral tinnitus. On cross-examination, however, the physician admitted there could be many causes of tinnitus. For example, the doctor admitted that older persons and men were more likely to experience tinnitus and that exposure to loud noises, ear infections, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and certain medications all could cause tinnitus. Perhaps most damaging, the doctor admitted that Meloxicam, a medication the supervisor took before the work-related accident, was a medication that can cause tinnitus. The supervisor’s expert rated him as possessing a 20 percent PPD due to the chronic bilateral tinnitus he sustained because of the work-related accident.

Employer’s Expert

The employer’s expert largely contradicted the findings of the supervisor’s expert. This doctor opined that the work-related accident was unlikely to be the prevailing factor in causing the supervisor’s tinnitus. The physician also stated that the work-related accident was at most only a potential cause of the tinnitus.

Commission’s Findings

An ALJ concluded the work-related accident was not the cause of the supervisor’s tinnitus. Specifically, the ALJ found that the supervisor had offered “no evidence” of the cause of his tinnitus and that the employer’s medical expert’s testimony regarding causation was more persuasive than that of the expert offered by the supervisor. The Commission found the ALJ’s award was supported by sufficient competent evidence and adopted the award and decision.

Appellate Court

The appellate panel noted that in order to challenge the Commission’s award as not supported by the facts it had found, the supervisor needed to show the factual findings the Commission made were not consistent with its award. According to the appellate panel, the supervisor made no such showing. The panel acknowledged that the Commission’s finding that the supervisor had offered “no evidence” regarding the causation of his tinnitus was not supported by the record.

Indicating the ALJ’s opinion (which, in turn, had been adopted by the Commission) was “poorly written,” the panel found, however, that there was “plenty of sufficient competent evidence to support the Commission”s finding that the work-related accident was not the prevailing factor in causing [the supervisor’s] tinnitus.” Observing further that the court will not reverse the Commission’s decision if the latter reaches the right result, “even if it gave a wrong or insufficient reason for its ruling,” the panel affirmed.