In Missouri “Upside-Down” Case, Parents Fail to Prove Son’s Death was Caused by Obesity
In an unusual, “upside-down” case, in which the parents of a deceased employee argued that their son’s death was not compensable, because it was caused, in part they claimed, by their son’s idiopathic condition—his morbid obesity—a Missouri appellate court affirmed a finding by the state’s Labor and Industrial Relations Commission that had determined the employee’s death from a heat stroke was indeed a compensable accident that arose out of and in the course of the employment [Halsey v. Townsend Tree Serv. Co., 2021 Mo. App. LEXIS 469 (Apr. 20, 2021)]. The appellate court said that while there was evidence that the employee’s obesity may have been a “contributing” factor in his death, there was a complete absence of proof that employee’s obesity had played a causative factor in the employee’s heat stroke and death.
Background
On July 22, 2016, three days after the employee began working for a tree service company, he collapsed from the heat. Evidence indicated that it had been quite hot for all three days of his work with the employer and that the heat index on the day he collapsed was 114 degrees. At the hospital, the employee was diagnosed with heat stroke. He died the following day and hyperthermia was given as the cause of death. At the time of his death, the employee was 23 years old, 6’1” in height, and weighed approximately 300 pounds.
While engaged in a wrongful death action filed against the employer and others, the employee’s parents sought a determination from the Division of Workers’ Compensation. In what, at first blush, seems like an unusual contention, they indicated that they were not making a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. Within their pleading, they further asserted that a compensable injury had not occurred. In fact, the parents argued that their son had an idiopathic condition—morbid obesity—that the employee’s obesity contributed to cause his death, and that pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 287.020.3(3), since the idiopathic condition directly or indirectly contributed to the employee’s death, the injury was not compensable. Under these circumstances, the parents argued that the civil action against the employer was not barred by the exclusive remedy doctrine.
The employer disputed that the employee’s obesity was an idiopathic condition and affirmatively argued that the employee’s death qualified for and was covered by the exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation. The employer alleged that the amount of workers’ compensation owed—the employee’s medical and funeral expenses—had already been paid.
ALJ’s Findings
An ALJ found that the employee sustained an accident or occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment on July 22, 2016, that the employee’s work was the prevailing factor in causing the employee’s heat stroke and ultimate death, and that the employee’s obesity did not qualify as an idiopathic condition. Accordingly, the ALJ found the employee’s claim was compensable.
Commission Affirms, in Relevant Part
The employee’s parents sought review with the Commission. The Commission found that while the employee’s obesity may have contributed to his heat stroke and resulting collapse and death, his work outside as a laborer in extremely hot weather on July 22, 2016, constituted an unexpected traumatic event or an unusual strain and was the prevailing factor in causing both employee’s heat stroke and resulting collapse and death. The Commission, therefore, affirmed the ALJ’s findings in relevant part.
Was There an Accident?
The parents appealed. They contended the Commission erred in finding that there had been an “accident.” Pointing to section 287.020.2, they argued that there was no sufficient competent evidence in the record from which to find that the employee’s heat stroke and death were caused by a specific event during a single work shift. They contended that the heat stroke had been brought on by the hot conditions over the three-day period of work, and that under Missouri’s definition of accident—requiring that there be an unexpected traumatic event or unusual strain—there was no accident.
The appellate court agreed that there was some testimony as to the effects of heat over a three-day period of time, but stressed that the medical expert expressed an opinion that the working conditions on July 22, 2016 were the prevailing factor in causing the employee’s injury and death. Moreover, relevant lay testimony described first-hand the heat on the day the employee collapsed. They indicated the employee was doing fine up until the afternoon of the collapse.
Did the Employee Have an Idiopathic Condition?
The parents, of course, had not contested the issue of whether the employee suffered an injury. Rather, they argued that under section 287.020.3(3) the employee’s injury had been caused, at least in part, by an idiopathic condition. While not using the specific term, the appellate court noted that this was an “upside-down” case. In other words, ordinarily it is the employer who argues that the injured employee suffered from an idiopathic condition that caused the injury. That is because the employer is attempting to avoid workers’ compensation liability. Here, however, it was the parents who were arguing that the injury and death were not compensable, that they had been caused, at least in part, by the employee’s idiopathic condition.
Thus, said the court, the burden of proof was on the parents. The court indicated that the parents’ section 287.020.3(3) burden of proof had two parts: the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. To sustain their burden of proof under section 287.020.3(3), the court stressed the parents first had to prove the existence of at least one idiopathic cause of the alleged resulting injury. In the absence of an idiopathic cause, section 287.020.3(3) did not apply.
Causation
The court continued that assuming, arguendo, that the employee’s morbid obesity was idiopathic, the parents had to, nevertheless, produce evidence of the requisite causal connection to the employee’s injury, i.e., that the employee’s morbid obesity was a “cause” of the employee’s heat stroke.
The court admitted that the parents had come forward with evidence that the employee’s obesity contributed to his heat stroke and death. The parents had not directed the court to any evidence in the record and, having reviewed the whole record, the court could not find any evidence that would have supported a finding by the Commission that “but for” the employee’s morbid obesity, he would not have suffered the heat stroke that lead to his death. The parents, accordingly, had failed to satisfy their burden of production on the application of section 287.020.3(3) such that the issue could have been decided in their favor by the Commission.
The parents’ failure to satisfy their burden of producing evidence that the section 287.020.3(3) idiopathic exception applied to the case resolved their remaining challenge. The Commission’s award (i.e., its finding that the injury and death were compensable) was, therefore, affirmed.
Comment
Although the issue was never mentioned in the appellate court’s decision, the parents’ status as nondependent relatives was at the heart of the case. Their strategy here had been to avoid the effect of the death benefits provision in Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.240. Under that statute, the nondependent parents of an employee whose death is the result of a work-related accident recover no workers’ compensation death benefits [see, e.g., Etling v. Westport Heating & Cooling Servs., 92 S.W.3d 771, 2003 Mo. LEXIS 6 (Mo. 2003)]. As we discuss in Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, §§ 96.01 and 100.05, in a number of jurisdictions, including Missouri, where a parent is not dependent upon the employee—as appears to have been the case here—the nondependent parent has no claim for death benefits at all.