May 2019 Update - Legislative, Regulatory, Judicial

OFFICE: 636-519-1834

FAX: 636-519-0682



MAY 2019


The following are proposed bills which have been filed in the Missouri Legislature.

Senate Bill 156 modifies some payments of Second Injury Fund liabilities.  Status - heard in Senate Committee. 

SB 248 sets six year terms for Administrative Law Judges and requires retention votes every three years status – heard in Senate Committee. 

HB 248 sets six year terms for Administrative Law Judges and requires retention votes every three years status – passed House Committee.

HB 1032 sets a “prevailing factor” standard for occupational disease awards under workers’ compensation status – filed. 


The mileage reimbursement rate from July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019 is $0.51.5 per mile.


The rates from July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019 are $947.64 for TTD and PTD and $496.38 for PPD. 


McDowell v. St. Luke’s Hospital of Kansas (MLW No. 73091/Case No. WD82076 – 15 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District).

  • Compensable Injury
  • Causation
  • Inherent Risk

Where a hospital employer challenged an award of permanent partial disability to an employee for a wrist injury she suffered in a fall at work, the commission did not err in finding that the injury arose from the course and scope of employment since the injury was predicated on a risk, which was pulling a cart of work supplies through a congested entry, that was inherent to her workplace, and the administrative law judge properly found that the fall was not the result of an idiopathic cause, and the judgment is affirmed because substantial and sufficient competent evidence in the form of medical reports supported the award.

Judgement is affirmed.   

Naeter v. Treasurer (MLW No. 72907/Case No. ED106949 – 10 pages) Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District).

  • SIF Liability
  • Statute of Limitations
  • Settlement Stipulations

Where a claimant, who suffered work related hearing loss, brought a claim against the Second Injury Fund, the commission did not err in denying the claim as time barred because the second-amended claim failed to raise new issues regarding liability, so it did not constitute a claim against the employer as required, and settlement stipulations are not a claim for calculating the SIF statute of limitations unless no claim was filed before the stipulations. 

Judgment is affirmed.

Customer Engineering Services v. Odom (MLW No. 72905/Case No. SD35638 – 5 pages.  (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District).

  • PTD
  • Future Medical Expenses
  • Medical Expense Liability

Where employer challenged the award of past and future medical expenses and permanent total disability benefits to a claimant, the judgement is affirmed in part because the award of future medical expenses was supported by substantial and competent evidence, but the award erroneously included medical expenses that predated June 30, 2014, so judgment is reversed in part.

Judgment is reversed and remanded in part; affirmed in part.

Robinson v. The Loxcreen Company, Inc. (MLW No. 73101/Case No. SD35649 – 10 pages.  (Missouri Court of Appeals).

  • PTD Benefits
  • Medical Evidence
  • SIF Liability

Where employer challenged an award of permanent partial disability benefits and figure medical expenses to a former employee, the employer failed to follow the required analytical process in its points on appeal, and the judgment is affirmed because the commission’s decision to grant compensation was not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and the Second Injury Fund’s challenge to its liability failed because the award was based on sufficient, competent evidence.

Judgment is affirmed.

Office Location


Every effort has been made to ensure this website is accurate. However, this website is not intended as legal advice or counsel. Every situation is different and has unique circumstances. Please consult with an attorney about your specific situation. Use of this website, including email, does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The choice of an attorney is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.