Missouri Court of Appeals responds to statue of limitations debate

Debate over when the statute of limitations began running for a woman's workers' compensation claim was resolved with an opinion from the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District.

Joyce Rupard filed her claim October 4, 2000, after her doctor determined she needed surgery to relieve pain in her upper extremities, which he believed were a result from her work.

Rupard worked for John K. Kiesendahl, DDS as a dental assistant, and regularly stood in awkward positions while working. She began suffering from severe headaches in 1984, and she continued to suffer from pain and other symptoms. In 1985, she felt the symptoms were likely caused by her work. She testified her primary care physician also said her condition was a result from her work sometime in the early 1990s.

Rupard visited her physician in July 2000, complaining of increased pain. An MRI indicated Rupard suffered a "loss of normal lordosis of the cervical spine with posterior osteophytes." Rupard was referred to a neurosurgeon, who, on October 4, 2000, recommended she have a discectomy and fusion.

An administrative law judge ruled in favor of Rupard's employer, finding her claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The case was reversed by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission.

According to Section 287.430 RSMo. 2000 sets out a statute of limitations for workers' compensation claims of two years from the date of the injury. The statute of limitations is extended to three years if the employer does not file a report of the injury. Since her employer did not file a report, Rupard had three years to file her claim.

On appeal, her employer argues the commission's determination of the date of her injury was wrong. According to Section 287.063.3, states that the statute of limitations "shall not begin to run in cases of occupational disease until it becomes reasonably discoverable and apparent that a compensable injury has been sustained &"

As cited in Wiele v. National Super Markets Inc. (Mo. App. E.D. 1997), Missouri courts have typically determined the statute of limitations in such a case begins to run when an employee can no longer work due to the occupational disease; the employee receives medical advice to cease work; or the employee has a compensable disability.

The court found that the first day Rupard missed work did not qualify her injury as a compensable injury, despite the employer's argument to the contrary. The court also did not consider the fact that she had sought medical care for a number of years as evidence that she had a compensable injury, because she was never "medically advised" she could no longer work. In fact, she was not advised to cease working as a dental assistant even after she was told she would need surgery. The court noted that her condition did not become a disability until August or September 2000.

Missouri courts have also found that occupational diseases that result from repetitive movements, such as Rupard's, are only considered a compensable disability when there is a need for surgery, such as in this case. The appellate court found the doctor's recommendation for surgery was the first moment when Rupard's injury could have been considered a disability. Since she filed her claim the same day, she was well within the statute of limitations.

"The fact that she saw an expert in the field and was advised by him that she needed surgery is evidence that she had a disability sufficient to constitute a compensable injury," Judge Robert Ulrich wrote. "It does not, however, constitute a disability solely because she went to see an expert who diagnosed her condition as requiring surgery. Rather, it is the combination of the neurosurgeon's diagnosis, the intolerable pain that she experienced, and the fact that the pain began interfering with her job duties in 2000 that resulted in her disability."

Copyright 2003 Dolan Media Newswires
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.