McBride v. Leggett & Platt, No. 22650

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtJOHN E. PARRISH; PREWITT, P.J., and CROW
Citation998 S.W.2d 198
Decision Date31 August 1999
Docket NumberNo. 22650
PartiesLarry McBRIDE, Respondent, v. LEGGETT & PLATT and Continental Casualty Company, Appellants.

Page 198

998 S.W.2d 198
Larry McBRIDE, Respondent,
v.
LEGGETT & PLATT and Continental Casualty Company, Appellants.
No. 22650.
Missouri Court of Appeals,
Southern District,
Division One.
Aug. 31, 1999.

Page 199

Ronald G. Sparlin, Blanchard, Robertson, Mitchell & Carter, P.C., Joplin, for Appellants.

Charles Buchanan, Buchanan, Williams & Ward, L.L.C., Joplin, for respondent.

JOHN E. PARRISH, Judge.

Leggett & Platt (employer) and Continental Casualty Co. (insurer) appeal an award by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (the commission) awarding Larry McBride (claimant) compensation, including the cost of future medical care. This court affirms.

Employer employed claimant as a yard worker. On March 18, 1992, claimant was injured in an accident that occurred during the course of his employment. The brakes on a pole truck claimant was driving failed. The pole truck collided with a concrete wall.

Claimant's knees struck the dash on the pole truck. Both knees were injured. His injuries were treated at McCune Brooks Hospital. He also received medical care from employer's company doctor. He returned to work the Monday following the accident. On June 12, 1992, claimant notified employer that he was unable to perform his job as a result of the injuries he received in the March 18 accident; that he needed medical attention. Claimant did not work after that date.

Employer's company doctor referred claimant to Dr. Mueller, an orthopedic surgeon. Claimant saw Dr. Mueller on June 16, 1992. He continued to see him until October 22, 1992, when employer suspended medical care.

Claimant contacted another physician, Dr. Paul W. Toma. He saw Dr. Toma three times. After consultation and treatment by Dr. Toma, claimant again contacted employer and asked for additional medical care. Employer sent him to Dr. David L. Black to determine if surgery was needed. Dr. Black saw claimant on July 8, 1993. Following several examinations and conservative treatment, Dr. Black proposed arthroscopy to ascertain if there were abnormalities. On December 3, 1993, arthroscopic surgery was performed on claimant's right knee. On January 14, 1994, arthroscopic surgery was performed on the left knee.

On April 7, 1994, after several examinations, Dr. Black released claimant. Dr. Black rated claimant's disability as "a 10% impairment of his left lower extremity and an 8% impairment of his right lower extremity." Claimant was asked if he benefited from the surgery. He answered, "Yes. It helped some with the extreme pain. I still had moderate pain afterwards."

Page 200

Claimant filed a claim for compensation in August 1994. He negotiated with insurer about possible settlement. A settlement offer of $9,700 was made. Claimant authorized acceptance of that offer. Letters were exchanged between insurer's attorney and claimant's attorney. A compromise settlement agreement was submitted for claimant's signature. Claimant decided, however, that the settlement was not in his best interests. He declined to execute the agreement. Claimant was asked the following questions and gave the following answers:

Q. [by claimant's attorney] Larry, did anything occur after this agreement was reached that caused you to believe it was not in your best interest to go forward?

A. Yes, two things occurred. My knees were popping out to where I couldn't withstand standing on them or bearing weight on them. And I understood that if I had to do future surgeries, which my doctor had told me that approximately twenty years I might need to do knee replacement, and I thought I needed to have a second opinion before I decided to settle.

Q. Let me make sure I understand what you said. You said something about a doctor having told you that in twenty years you need--- ... You might need a total knee replacement, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. What doctor told you that?

A. Dr. Black who did surgery on my knee.

Q. Did he tell you that before the agreement or after the agreement?

A. Before.

...

Q. [by claimant's attorney] You've told us that after the agreement you saw Dr. Peterson?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that correct? And is that an appointment that I set up for you?

A. Yes.

A letter claimant's attorney received from Dr. Peterson was introduced in evidence. It was dated July 21, 1995. It included the following recommendations and prognosis:

RECOMMENDATIONS: The patient should continue with the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication and daily quadricep strengthening exercises. He should avoid doing squatting or a lot of climbing steps or ladder. He may at some point require another surgical procedure, possibly high tibial osteotomy or at some point a total knee arthroplasty on the right knee and possibly arthroscopic evaluation of the left knee should he [sic] symptoms worsen. The high tibial osteotomy probably would be the procedure of choice at this present time due to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Roth v. J.J. Brouk & Co. , No. ED 96708.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 15, 2011
    ...Commission to either approve or disapprove any settlement attempted to be made. This duty cannot be avoided.” McBride v. Leggett & Platt, 998 S.W.2d 198, 201 (Mo.App. S.D.1999), quoting Myers v. Cap Sheaf Bread Co., 354 Mo. 943, 192 S.W.2d 503, 503 (Mo. banc 1945).Conclusion The Commission'......
  • D.S. Silfers Corp. v. Hallak
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 20, 2001
    ...S.W.2d at 586. This is so because under the res ipsa doctrine, the bailee has exclusive control of the bailed property. See Larison, 998 S.W.2d at 198. Once loss is established, the burden shifts to the bailee "to defeat the inference of negligence[.] Temple, 839 S.W.2d at 326. The theory o......
2 cases
  • Roth v. J.J. Brouk & Co. , No. ED 96708.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 15, 2011
    ...Commission to either approve or disapprove any settlement attempted to be made. This duty cannot be avoided.” McBride v. Leggett & Platt, 998 S.W.2d 198, 201 (Mo.App. S.D.1999), quoting Myers v. Cap Sheaf Bread Co., 354 Mo. 943, 192 S.W.2d 503, 503 (Mo. banc 1945).Conclusion The Commission'......
  • D.S. Silfers Corp. v. Hallak
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 20, 2001
    ...S.W.2d at 586. This is so because under the res ipsa doctrine, the bailee has exclusive control of the bailed property. See Larison, 998 S.W.2d at 198. Once loss is established, the burden shifts to the bailee "to defeat the inference of negligence[.] Temple, 839 S.W.2d at 326. The theory o......

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