Annayeva v. Sab the TSD of St. Louis

Decision Date17 March 2020
Docket NumberNo. SC 98122,C/w No. SC 98124,SC 98122
Citation597 S.W.3d 196
Parties Maral ANNAYEVA, Appellant, v. SAB OF the TSD OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, and Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondents.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Annayeva was represented by Dean L. Christianson of Schuchat, Cook & Werner in St. Louis, (314) 621-2626.

The transitional school district’s special administrative board was represented by Matthew D. Leonard of Early & Miranda PC in St. Louis, (314) 241-3030; and the treasurer was represented by Caroline Bean and David L. McCain Jr. of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City, (573) 751-3321.

Zel M. Fischer, Judge

Maral Annayeva appeals a decision from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission ("Commission") denying her claim for workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained when she fell while entering her place of work. Annayeva failed to prove her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment; therefore, the Commission's denial of workers' compensation benefits is affirmed.

Factual Background and Procedural History

Maral Annayeva worked as an English as a second language teacher at Roosevelt High School in St. Louis. On January 8, 2013, Annayeva drove to Roosevelt, parked in the school parking lot, and walked into the school carrying a bag containing various folders, student papers, and lesson plans. Annayeva entered the school through a set of double doors, passed a security guard station, and headed toward the room where she clocked-in. At some time during the walk, Annayeva slipped on Roosevelt's linoleum floor, causing her to fall forward and land on her hands and knees. Annayeva was taken for treatment to the school nurse's office, where she filled out an accident report noting she could not determine what had caused her to slip and fall.

Annayeva then went to the emergency room at St. Mary's Hospital complaining of back and knee pain. She returned to the emergency room the next day due to the pain she was experiencing. After missing a few days of work due to the accident, Annayeva returned to work for several days but stopped after having difficulties teaching. She did not work again until August 2013, when the new school year began. She worked for two days but again stopped after experiencing too much pain. Annayeva testified she experienced pain in her legs, back, head, right thigh, right hip, neck, arms, right shoulder and fingers. Additionally, Annayeva complained of breathing problems, stomach problems, liver problems, anxiety, depression, dizziness, nausea, face drooping, and cysts on her fingers. For her ailments, Annayeva sought and received an extensive list of medical treatments1 including: injections, x-rays, physical therapy, spinal adjustments, an MRI, and water therapy, as well as several other doctor's visits, medical tests, and medications.

In addition to her testimony, Annayeva presented evidence of her medical records, transcripts of doctors' depositions, and medical bills. The Special Administrative Board of the Transitional School District of the City of St. Louis ("SAB") presented deposition testimony of three other doctors who evaluated Annayeva and one other doctor's medical records. The ALJ denied Annayeva any workers' compensation benefits, noting:

[Annayeva] has failed to provide credible testimony to this Court. It is clear [Annayeva's] description of her injuries and their subsequent effects verge on the point of malingering. As all, if not most, of [Annayeva's] medical expert testimony relies ... on [Annayeva's] own subjective description of her maladies[.] There is little or no objective medical finding to support any of [Annayeva's] anomalies. [Annayeva] has not met her burden of showing the incident of January 8, 2013 was the prevailing factor causing the physiological and/or psychological complaints.

Annayeva appealed the ALJ's denial of benefits to the Commission, which affirmed the ALJ's decision with a supplemental opinion.2 In its supplemental opinion, the Commission held Annayeva failed to establish that her injury arose out of her employment. The Commission determined any evidence, including Annayeva's testimony,3 regarding the soiled condition of the floor on the day of her accident was not credible and held, "[w]ithout additional support in the record for the alleged hazardous condition of the hallway floor, we find that the only risk source in this matter was that of walking, one to which [Annayeva] would have been equally exposed in normal non-employment life." After an opinion by the court of appeals, this Court granted transfer. Mo. Const. art. V, § 10.

Standard of Review

This Court reviews all final decisions, findings, rules, and orders of the Commission to determine "whether the same are supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record." Mo. Const. art. V, § 18. The Commission's decision will be affirmed unless: "(1) the Commission acted without or in excess of its powers; (2) the award was procured by fraud; (3) the facts found by the Commission do not support the award; or (4) there was not sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the award." White v. ConAgra Packaged Foods, LLC , 535 S.W.3d 336, 338 (Mo. banc 2017) ; § 287.495.1, RSMo 2000.4 "Upon appeal no additional evidence shall be heard and, in the absence of fraud, the findings of fact made by the [C]ommission within its powers shall be conclusive and binding." § 287.495.1, RSMo 2000. In addition to findings of fact, this Court also defers to the Commission's determinations as to credibility of witnesses and the weight given to conflicting evidence. Greer v. SYSCO Food Servs. , 475 S.W.3d 655, 664 (Mo. banc 2015).

Analysis

Missouri's Workers' Compensation Law ("Act") was amended in 2005 "to provide that its provisions are to be construed strictly and to require the evidence to be weighed impartially without giving any party the benefit of the doubt." Miller v. Mo. Highway and Transp. Comm'n , 287 S.W.3d 671, 673 (Mo. banc 2009)5 ; § 287.800. Under the Act, an injury is compensable only when the claimant demonstrates the injury has arisen out of and in the course of employment. § 287.020.3(1); Johme v. St. John's Mercy Healthcare , 366 S.W.3d 504, 509 (Mo. banc 2012) ("[T]he workers' compensation claimant[ ] bears the burden of proof to show that her injury was compensable in workers' compensation.").

An injury shall be deemed to arise out of and in the course of employment only if:
(a) It is reasonably apparent, upon consideration of all the circumstances, that the accident is the prevailing factor6 in causing the injury; and
(b) It does not come from a hazard or risk unrelated to the employment to which workers would have been equally exposed outside of and unrelated to the employment in normal nonemployment life.

§ 287.020.3(2)(a)-(b). "For an injury to be deemed to arise out of and in the course of the employment under section 287.020.3(2)(b), the claimant employee must show a causal connection between the injury at issue and the employee's work activity." Johme , 366 S.W.3d at 510.

This Court recognized in Miller and Johme that failure to prove the hazard or risk causing the employee injury was related to employment to which the employee would not have been equally exposed outside of work is fatal to an employee's workers' compensation claim.

In Miller , a road crew worker was repairing a section of road on Route N in Pike County. Miller , 287 S.W.3d at 672. While walking on the flat road back to a truck containing repair material, Miller felt his knee pop. Id. Miller required surgery to repair an impinging medial shelf plica. Id. Miller sought workers' compensation benefits, which the Commission denied. Id. This Court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding Miller failed to prove his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment because nothing about his work transformed his walk to the truck into a hazard or risk he was not equally exposed to in normal, nonemployment life. Id. at 674. Said differently, an injury occurring at work does not automatically make such an injury compensable; some condition of employment must create a hazard or risk the employee would not be equally exposed to in normal, nonemployment life. Id.7

In Johme , a billing representative at a hospital tripped and fell after making a pot of coffee in the workplace kitchen. 366 S.W.3d at 505-06. Johme sought workers' compensation benefits, which the Commission awarded. Id. at 507. This Court reversed, holding Johme failed to prove her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment because no evidence demonstrated her injury was caused by a risk related to her employment activity as opposed to a risk she was equally exposed to in normal life. Id. at 512.

Annayeva attempts to distinguish her situation from those cases by arguing the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
51 cases
  • Guinn v. Treasurer of Mo.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 4 Mayo 2020
    ...weight given to conflicting evidence. Greer v. SYSCO Food Servs. , 475 S.W.3d 655, 664 (Mo. banc 2015). Annayeva v. SAB of TSD of City of St. Louis , SC 98122, 597 S.W.3d 196, 198-99 (Mo. banc Mar. 17, 2020) (footnote omitted).Discussion In both of his points relied on, employee asserts a s......
  • Marks v. Mo. Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 14 Abril 2020
    ...on the other hand, do not and -- once expressed by the Commission -- are binding on this Court." Annayeva v. SAB of TSD of City of St. Louis , No. SC98122, 597 S.W.3d 196, 200 n.8 (Mo. banc March 17, 2020) (emphasis added).5 Marks relies on a line of cases relating to employment injuries th......
  • Halsey v. Townsend Tree Serv. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 20 Abril 2021
    ...section 287.020.3(3) burden of proof has two parts: the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. Annayeva v. SAB of TSD of City of St. Louis , 597 S.W.3d 196, 200 n.8 (Mo. banc 2020) (citing Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corp. v. Dir. of Revenue , 488 S.W.3d 62, 67 (Mo. banc 2016) ). As r......
  • Surgery Ctr. Partners, LLC v. Mondelez Int'l, Inc.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 5 Julio 2022
    ...The Commission's findings of fact are binding and conclusive and we only examine questions of law, § 287.495.1; Annayeva v. SAB of TSD of City of St. Louis , 597 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Mo. banc 2020), which we review de novo , Schoen , 597 S.W.3d at 659. Questions of statutory interpretation are ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT