Baxi v. United Technologies Automotive
| Decision Date | 07 October 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 71597,71597 |
| Citation | 956 S.W.2d 340 |
| Parties | Subhash BAXI, Claimant-Appellant, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES AUTOMOTIVE, Employer-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Thomas J. Gregory, Mogab & Hughes, St. Louis, for claimant-appellant.
Edward M. Vokoun, Evans & Dixon, St. Louis, for employer-respondent.
In this workers' compensation case, Subhash Baxi (Claimant) appeals from that part of the final award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) modifying the award of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and awarding Claimant permanent partial disability. Claimant asserts that the Commission erred in making its award because 1) the award was not supported by competent and substantial evidence and was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence; 2) the Commission applied the incorrect test for permanent total disability; 3) the Commission failed to explain its reasons for its credibility determinations; and 4) the Commission's termination of Claimant's temporary disability benefits on February 3, 1992, was arbitrary. We reverse and remand.
Claimant is a middle-aged man of slight build. He is originally from India and holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry and two Master's Degrees, one in Organic Chemistry and the other in Polymer Science. Claimant began working for United Technologies Automotive (Employer) in March, 1984, as an assistant chemist, mixing and cutting rubber. Claimant remained there until he was injured on January 9, 1985. While taking a sample of rubber out of a mixer, the mixer caught Claimant's left hand, crushing and partially severing it. The injury to his hand required extensive reconstruction, including the reattachment of several fingers and his thumb. However, the surgery to reattach his thumb was unsuccessful. Claimant then returned to work for Employer at a desk job on May 12, 1985, and remained there until his position was eliminated on January 31, 1987, and Employer laid off Claimant. Claimant has not worked since this date.
Claimant filed a claim with the Division of Workers' Compensation for both physical and mental disabilities resulting from the accident. 1 Claimant appeared before the ALJ who found Claimant not competent and requested Claimant's attorney obtain a psychiatric evaluation of Claimant. The psychiatrist who examined Claimant, Dr. Parwatikar, found Claimant was not competent to understand the nature of the workers' compensation proceedings and would not be capable of participating as a witness. Based upon these recommendations, the ALJ suggested that a guardian ad litem be appointed for Claimant and the circuit court appointed a Next Friend. The first hearing was declared a mistrial and de novo proceedings commenced before another ALJ.
By the second hearing, however, Claimant was able to testify before the ALJ. His family and he testified that Claimant spends most of his time in seclusion, is preoccupied with elevating his hand to ease the pain, and is constantly watched over by his family who can never leave him alone. Depositions from certified psychiatrists who examined Claimant were also offered as evidence of Claimant's mental impairment. A brief chronological history of their conclusions is as follows: On July, 10, 1987, Dr. Dowell examined Claimant and diagnosed him with major depression. Dr. Dowell also found Claimant appeared psychomotor retarded 2 and had a disheveled appearance. Dr. Stillings saw Claimant on September 1, 1987, and found Claimant showed some psychomotor retardation. He diagnosed Claimant with major depression. Dr. Stillings saw Claimant again on October 31, 1990, and November 5, 1990, and while he concluded that Claimant's depression had not improved, he thought Claimant exaggerated his symptoms. On November 5, 1991, Dr. Stillings examined Claimant and found, for the first time, no evidence of psychomotor retardation, which indicated to Dr. Stillings that Claimant had made a strong recovery from the depression. Dr. Stillings concluded that Claimant's depression was stable, controlled and at a lower level and gave Claimant a disability rating of 5%. Dr. Finn examined Claimant on December 20, 1991, and found Claimant to have major depression with melancholia. He gave Claimant a disability rating of 100%. Dr. Dowell examined Claimant a second time on July 23, 1992, and found Claimant appeared more disheveled and more psychomotor retarded than when he first examined Claimant. He diagnosed Claimant with major depression with a psychotic component and gave claimant a disability rating of 100%.
Based on the depositions and testimony, the ALJ found Claimant temporarily and totally disabled due to the mental impairment and entitled to temporary total disability benefits. Because Claimant had failed to undergo treatment for his psychological impairment, the ALJ conditioned the temporary award on Claimant receiving medical and psychological treatment within one year of the award. However, after the expiration of that year, the ALJ found Claimant had failed to obtain such treatment and entered a final award terminating the temporary disability benefits and awarding permanent total disability benefits of $222.73 per week for the life of Claimant.
Both Claimant and Employer filed Applications for Review to the Commission. After a review of the evidence, the Commission modified the ALJ's award of permanent total disability to 10% permanent partial disability to Claimant's body as a whole for depression. The Commission also found that Employer was due a credit for overpayment of temporary disability benefits. The Commission calculated that by the hearing, Employer had paid $108,231.89 in temporary total disability benefits to Claimant. The Commission found Employer had paid $222.73 per week for the periods of January 1, 1987 through June 26, 1987, and November 7, 1991 through February 3, 1992, which came to a total of $8,463.74. Adding this amount of temporary benefits to Employer's liability to Claimant for 100% permanent disability at the level of Claimant's wrist in the amount of $27,564.08 and Employer's liability for 10% permanent partial disability to Claimant's body as a whole resulting from the depression Claimant suffered following the accident in the amount of $5,727.60, and deducting the combined total from the money already awarded, the Commission found Employer entitled to a credit for overpayment of temporary total disability benefits in the amount of $66,476.47
Claimant raises four points on appeal, one of which we find dispositive. In his second point, Claimant argues the Commission applied the incorrect test for finding permanent total disability due to a mental impairment. Specifically, Claimant asserts the Commission erred in considering his age, education, and physical ability in its determination of Claimant's disability based on mental impairment. Claimant argues the proper test is whether, in light of his mental impairment, Claimant "is able to compete in the open labor market or return to any reasonable or normal employment."
When a decision of the Commission is appealed:
[we] review only questions of law and may modify, reverse, remand for rehearing, or set aside the award upon any of the following grounds and no other:
(1) That the commission acted without or in excess of its powers;
(2) That the award was procured by fraud (3) That the facts found by the commission do not support the award;
(4) That there was not sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the award.
Section 287.495, RSMo 1994. 3
Section 287.020.7 defines "total disability" as the "inability to return to any employment and not merely ... inability to return to the employment in which the employee was engaged at the time of the accident." The test for determining whether a claimant is permanently and totally disabled is whether:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baxi v. United Technologies Automotive
...On appeal from this award, we reversed and remanded for a re-determination of plaintiff's disability. Baxi v. United Technologies Automotive, 956 S.W.2d 340, 344 (Mo. App.1997) (Baxi I). On remand, the Commission entered a modification of final award in which it found plaintiff permanently ......
-
K & D Auto Body v. Division of Employ. Sec.
...the facts alone, it is a conclusion of law and subject to our reversal." Merriman, 392 S.W.2d at 297; see also Baxi v. United Techs. Auto., 956 S.W.2d 340, 343 (Mo.App. E.D.1997). Accordingly, in reviewing the correctness of the Commission's legal conclusion that, based on the facts found b......
-
Rector v. Gary's Heating & Cooling
...in his present physical or mental condition reasonably expecting him to perform the work for which he is hired.' Baxi v. United Tech. Auto., 956 S.W.2d 340, 343 (Mo.App.1997) (quoting Grgic v. P & G Constr., 904 S.W.2d 464, 466 (Mo.App. 1995)). "This test measures the worker's prospects for......
-
Gonzales v. Butterball, L. L.C.
...and can take into consideration a claimant's age, education, and physical abilities, or the lack thereof. Baxi v. United Techs. Automotive, 956 S.W.2d 340, 343 (Mo.App.1997). Finally, the question of disability is not purely a medical one: “The testimony of the claimant or other lay witness......