Snyder v. CONSOLIDATED LIBRARY DIST. NO. 3
| Decision Date | 30 March 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. WD 70641.,WD 70641. |
| Citation | 306 SW 3d 133 |
| Parties | Sharon SNYDER, Appellant, v. CONSOLIDATED LIBRARY DISTRICT NO. 3 and Guarantee Insurance Company, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Patrick B. Starke, Esq., Blue Springs, MO, for appellant.
Thomas V. Clinkenbeard, Esq., for respondent
BEFORE DIVISION ONE: LISA WHITE HARDWICK, Presiding Judge, JAMES M. SMART JR. and ALOK AHUJA, Judges.
Sharon Snyder appeals the denial of her workers compensation claim by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission. Ms. Snyder contends the Commission exceeded its authority in reversing a benefit award granted by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) because the Commission did not hear additional evidence and substituted its own credibility determinations for those of the ALJ. For reasons explained herein, we affirm.
On January 17, 2006, Ms. Snyder visited her primary care physician, Dr. Ghazal Shaikh, complaining of numbness in her left arm during the previous two weeks. She told Dr. Shaikh that she had been lifting furniture in the past two weeks but had not experienced any recent trauma. During the months prior to visiting the physician, Ms. Snyder had been renovating her Civil War era home for the filming of a cable television program. The renovation included furnishing her home with Civil War era furniture.
In March 2006, an MRI revealed that Ms. Snyder had a degenerative cervical condition. Notes from the MRI appointment indicated "The patient has no history of recent injury." Ms. Snyder was further evaluated on April 6, 2006, at the K.C. Pain Center, where she stated that her arm and neck pain had developed over the previous three months and again denied that any recent trauma had caused her injuries. She received cervical steroid injections at the K.C. Pain Center and was scheduled for surgery on her cervical spine.
On or about Friday, April 21, 2006, Ms. Snyder received a letter from her private health insurer inquiring whether the injuries for which she was being treated were work-related. Ms. Snyder had been employed for thirteen years at the Mid-Continent Library ("Employer"), where she was currently working as a library assistant. That same day, Ms. Snyder informed her Employer for the first time that she had been injured at work on January 9, 2006, when she was lifting boxes of books and felt a gradually increasing pain in her left arm. She told the Employer that she wanted to take the weekend to think about filing a workers compensation claim. On the following Tuesday, she filed a workers compensation claim alleging that she had injured her arm on January 9, 2006, while moving boxes at work.
Ms. Snyder underwent a C6-7 anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion on June 6, 2006. After the surgery, she initially reported improvement but within months the pain returned in her neck, back, and arm. She also began to experience vocal, hearing, and vision problems, as well as chronic dizziness, facial numbness, loss of appetite, and insomnia. Further medical testing indicated that additional cervical surgery might be necessary.
Ms. Snyder resigned her employment on May 2, 2007, and has remained unemployed. Despite numerous tests by a variety of specialists, physicians have been unable to determine a unifying diagnosis for all of her symptoms.
After a hardship hearing on the workers compensation claim, the ALJ awarded Ms. Snyder temporary total disability benefits and past and future medical expenses. The Employer sought review from the Commission, which reversed the ALJs award of benefits and expenses. The Commission found that Ms. Snyder lacked credibility because she gave inconsistent testimony regarding the cause and onset date of her injuries. Due to the inconsistencies, the Commission concluded that Ms. Snyder failed to meet her burden of proving that she suffered a compensable injury. The Commission issued a Final Award Denying Compensation. Ms. Snyder appeals from the Final Award.
In cases where the Commission reverses the decision of the ALJ, this court reviews the final award of the Commission and not the decision of the ALJ. Ruben v. Autozone, Inc., 217 S.W.3d 322, 323 (Mo.App.2007). We will not disturb the final award on appeal unless the Commission acted without or beyond its power, the award was procured by fraud, the facts do not support the award, or the award is not supported by sufficient competent evidence. § 287.495.1.1 "The Commission's interpretation and application of the law. . . are not binding on this court and fall within our realm of independent review and correction." Bowers v. Hiland Dairy Co., 132 S.W.3d 260, 263 (Mo.App.2004).
Ms. Snyder contends the Commission exceeded its statutory authority in reversing the ALJs benefit award because the Commission made new credibility determinations without holding its own evidentiary hearing. She argues the Commission failed to comply with Section 287.480.1, which provides:
If an application for review is made to the commission within twenty days from the date of the award, the full commission, if the first hearing was not held before the full commission, shall review the evidence, or, if considered advisable, as soon as practicable hear the parties at issue, their representatives and witnesses and shall make an award. . . .
Ms. Snyder argues this provision only authorizes the Commission to either "review the evidence" before it or issue a new award after an additional evidentiary hearing before the Commission. She does not contend that the Commissions final award is unsupported by competent and substantial evidence; rather, her sole point on appeal challenges the Commissions authority to make new credibility findings without hearing evidence.
As an administrative agency, the Commission can take action only as authorized by statute. Farmer v. Barlow Truck Lines, Inc., 979 S.W.2d 169, 170 (Mo. banc 1998). The extent of this authority must be discerned from the statutory language. "The primary rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain the intent of the legislature from the language used, to give effect to that intent if possible, and to consider the words in their plain and ordinary meaning." In re Boland, 155 S.W.3d 65, 67 (Mo. banc 2005). "The courts are without authority to read into a statute a legislative intent which is contrary to the intent made evident by giving the language employed in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial