Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Ronald Lamy vs. Stahl Speciality Company
Date: 09-11-2022
Case Number: WD85163
Judge: Cynthia L. Martin
Court:
MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS
On appeal from The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Saint Louis, MO - Best Personal Injury Lawyer Directory
Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.
Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement
Counselor:
MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.
MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge
Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800
Saint Louis, MO - Best Personal Injury Lawyer Directory
Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.
Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement
Counselor:
MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.
MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge
Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800
Defendant's Attorney: Joseph R. Ebbert
Description:
Lamy began working for Stahl Specialty Company ("Employer"), a company that
manufactures automotive and marine parts, in 1987. In June 2017, Lamy filed a claim for
compensation with the Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations Division of
Workers' Compensation ("Division of Workers' Compensation") for an injury related to his
"[l]eft upper extremity" suffered on August 26, 2016 ("August 2016 claim"). The August
2016 claim alleged a repetitive injury as follows:
[Lamy], while in the course and scope of his employment suffered an
accident, series of accidents or occupational disease while performing
foundry processes of repetitive lifting and throwing aluminum which were
the prevailing factors in his resultant injuries and disabilities. [Lamy] is
entitled to receive and makes demand for such medical care and treatment as
will cure and relieve him from the effects of the injuries . . . . [Lamy] is
further entitled to receive and makes demand for temporary total/partial
disability benefits . . . .
Employer referred Lamy to Dr. Gerald McNamara ("Dr. McNamara"). Dr.
McNamara examined Lamy on August 31, 2016, five days after the date of the alleged
injury to Lamy's upper left extremity. During that visit, Lamy complained of left shoulder
pain, and numbness and tingling in his left hand.
After ruling out more conservative treatment options, Dr. McNamara performed
surgery on Lamy's left shoulder on October 11, 2016. On October 24, 2016, Dr. McNamara
released Lamy to return to right-handed work only, but limited Lamy to lifting no more
than ten pounds with his right hand. Dr. McNamara also prescribed physical therapy for
1When reviewing the Commission's final award, we review the facts neutrally, and we neither view the
facts in the light most favorable to the final award nor make all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to
the final award. Ritchie v. Silgan Containers Mfg. Corp., 625 S.W.3d 787, 791 n.2 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021). Any
credibility determinations made by the Commission, however, are binding. Id.
3
Lamy on that date. Lamy had additional follow-up appointments with Dr. McNamara on
January 16, 2017, and on February 13, 2017. Following the February 13, 2017
appointment, Dr. McNamara determined that Lamy was ready for work conditioning to
prepare him for a full return to work, and released Lamy to work with restrictions that
limited lifting with his left arm to five pounds and no higher than shoulder height. In the
notes from the February 13, 2017 appointment, Dr. McNamara indicated that Lamy still
had carpal tunnel syndrome in the left wrist that might require future attention.
Following additional outpatient physical therapy and work conditioning, Dr.
McNamara released Lamy to work without restrictions on March 13, 2017. Lamy had a
follow-up appointment with Dr. McNamara on April 10, 2017, after which Dr. McNamara
concluded that Lamy "ha[d] reached maximum medical improvement" and released Lamy
from care. Dr. McNamara concluded that Lamy had a 4 percent permanent partial
disability to his "left upper extremity" that would not benefit from future medical or
prescriptive care.
Lamy's attorney referred Lamy to Dr. James Stuckmeyer ("Dr. Stuckmeyer") for a
medical evaluation. Lamy was evaluated by Dr. Stuckmeyer on November 9, 2017. Lamy
reported that, while he had returned to regular work, he continued to have ongoing
symptoms in his left shoulder. Lamy also reported to Dr. Stuckmeyer that he was
experiencing "symptoms of numbness and tingling in [his] left hand, nocturnal awakeness,
as well as decreased grip strength." Dr. Stuckmeyer concluded that Lamy required
additional treatment, including physical therapy and a repeat arthroscopic procedure, for
his left shoulder. Dr. Stuckmeyer concluded that, without additional treatment, Lamy had
4
a 35 percent permanent partial disability to his left shoulder. Dr. Stuckmeyer also opined
that Lamy still had evidence of left carpal tunnel syndrome that was related to Lamy's work
activities and that might require future surgical intervention.
After receiving the rating from Dr. McNamara for disability to the left upper
extremity and the rating from Dr. Stuckmeyer for disability to the left shoulder, Lamy and
Employer entered into a stipulation for compromise settlement ("compromise settlement")
of Lamy's August 2016 claim. The compromise settlement provided that Employer would
pay Lamy a lump sum of $14,000, representing a 12.5 percent disability rating for Lamy's
left shoulder. The compromise settlement expressly provided that it "settle[d] all issues
between the parties." The compromise settlement further provided:
THE EMPLOYEE UNDERSTANDS: by entering into this settlement,
except as provided by Section 287.140.8, RSMo, the EMPLOYEE is forever
closing out this claim under the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law; that
EMPLOYEE will receive no further compensation or medical aid by reason
of this accident/disease; that EMPLOYEE has the right to a hearing of the
EMPLOYEE'S claim, which may result in EMPLOYEE receiving more
money or less money than is provided by this settlement; that
EMPLOYER/INSURER and/or SECOND INJURY FUND is/are released
from all liability for this accident/disease upon approval by the
Administrative Law Judge. . . . The PARTIES by their signatures below agree
to the settlement, and the PARTIES request and recommend that this
settlement be approved and that the settlement is in accordance with the
rights of the parties. The EMPLOYER and EMPLOYEE indicate that the
settlement is not the result of undue influence or fraud; the EMPLOYEE fully
understands his/her rights and benefits; and the EMPLOYEE voluntarily
agrees to accept the terms of the agreement.
Lamy initialed to indicate that he had "full awareness of the consequences of this settlement
as set out above." Lamy, his counsel, and Employer's counsel signed the compromise
5
settlement, and an administrative law judge ("ALJ") approved the compromise settlement
on May 2, 2018.
Lamy filed a second workers' compensation claim on June 26, 2018, alleging that
on February 13, 2017, Lamy suffered an injury to his left wrist ("February 2017 claim").
February 13, 2017, was the date on which Dr. McNamara noted that Lamy still suffered
from left carpal tunnel syndrome that might require future attention. As had been the case
with the August 2016 claim, the February 2017 claim alleged a repetitive workplace injury
as follows:
[Lamy], while in the course and scope of his employment suffered an
accident, series of accidents or occupational disease while performing
foundry processes of repetitive lifting and throwing aluminum which were
the prevailing factors in his resultant injuries and disabilities. [Lamy] is
entitled to receive and makes demand for such medical care and treatment as
will cure and relieve him from the effects of the injuries . . . . [Lamy] is
further entitled to receive and makes demand for temporary total/partial
disability benefits . . . .
In response to the February 2017 claim, Employer again referred Lamy to Dr.
McNamara. Lamy was then scheduled for surgery on the left wrist. On August 19, 2019,
a few days prior to the scheduled surgery, Dr. McNamara wrote a letter to the Employer's
adjuster. In the letter, Dr. McNamara noted that Lamy had complained of numbness and
tingling in his left-hand in August 2016, and that treatment for Lamy's left hand "was put
on hold while he recovered from shoulder surgery." Dr. McNamara opined that Lamy's
current complaints about his left hand were related to the repetitive work injury that had
been the subject of the August 2016 claim. Lamy's scheduled surgery was cancelled.
6
Lamy retained Dr. Anne Rosenthal ("Dr. Rosenthal") to conduct a medical
evaluation and to review his medical records in July 2020. Dr. Rosenthal concluded that
Lamy sustained a work-related injury on February 13, 2017, that was the prevailing factor
in causing left carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Rosenthal's report did note that Lamy had first
reported numbness and tingling in the left hand when he was seen by Dr. McNamara in
August of 2016. Dr. Rosenthal was not aware that Lamy was not using his left hand from
October 2016 (when he had left shoulder surgery) until he was released to work without
restrictions in March 2017. Dr. Rosenthal relied on Dr. McNamara's February 13, 2017
medical notes acknowledging that Lamy had left carpal tunnel syndrome to conclude that
Lamy sustained a work-related injury on February 13, 2017.
On May 4, 2021, an ALJ heard Lamy's February 2017 claim. Among the issues
before the ALJ was whether Lamy's "request for medical benefits and compensation [was]
barred by the prior settlement of the August 26, 2016 . . . injury." Lamy testified at the
hearing, and the ALJ received Lamy's medical records, Lamy's August 2016 claim, and the
compromise settlement as exhibits.
The ALJ issued a written decision on July 8, 2021, denying Lamy's claim ("ALJ
Award"). The ALJ Award made multiple findings of fact, including a finding that Dr.
McNamara's opinions were more credible than Dr. Rosenthal's opinions. The ALJ Award
thus credited Dr. McNamara's opinion that the prevailing factor for Lamy's left carpal
tunnel syndrome was the same as the prevailing factor for his left shoulder injury: the
repetitive work activities that gave rise to the August 2016 claim. The ALJ Award noted
that Lamy voluntarily elected to settle his August 2016 claim with the knowledge that both
7
Dr. McNamara and Dr. Stuckmeyer had diagnosed him with left carpal tunnel syndrome
that might require future surgery, and with the knowledge that the compromise settlement
settled "all issues between the parties." The ALJ Award concluded that the August 25,
2016 work injury and resulting August 2016 claim were resolved in the compromise
settlement, so that, absent proof of fraud or mistake, the ALJ was without jurisdiction to
reopen the August 2016 claim to amend the compromise settlement to include
compensation for injuries to Lamy's left wrist.
Lamy appealed the ALJ Award to the Commission. By a 2-1 vote, the Commission
affirmed the ALJ Award and incorporated it by reference into the Commission's final award
denying compensation ("Final Award").
Lamy appeals.
Standard of Review
We review the findings and conclusions of the Commission, not of the ALJ. Greig
v. McCaleb, 638 S.W.3d 600, 603 n.4 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021). "[W]here[, as here,] the
Commission affirms the ALJ's Award and incorporates the ALJ's findings by reference into
the Commission's Final Award, . . . .we review for error the ALJ's findings and conclusions
as adopted by the Commission." Id.
Section 287.495.12
sets forth the standard we must apply when reviewing the
Commission's Final Award:
2All statutory references are to RSMo 2016 as supplemented through the date of February 13, 2017, the
alleged date of Lamy's work injury set forth in his February 2017 claim, unless otherwise indicated.
8
The court, on appeal, shall 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.
"The Commission's decision must be 'supported by competent and substantial evidence
upon the whole record.'" Klecka v. Treasurer of Mo., 644 S.W.3d 562, 565 (Mo. banc
2022) (quoting Mo. Const. article V, section 18). In determining whether the
Commission's decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence, we defer to the
Commission's determinations as to the credibility of the witnesses and as to the weight
given to conflicting evidence. Id. at 565-66. "We 'will affirm the Commission's decision
if [we] determine[] that the Commission could have reasonably made its findings, and
reached its result, upon consideration of all the evidence before it.'" Moss v. Treasurer of
State of Mo.--Custodian of Second Injury Fund, 570 S.W.3d 110, 115 (Mo. App. W.D.
2018) (quoting Treasurer of State of Mo. v. Majors, 506 S.W.3d 348, 352 (Mo. App. W.D.
2016)). If, however, the Commission's decision is based on its interpretation and
application of the law, we review the Commission's legal conclusions and decision de novo.
Id.
Analysis
Lamy presents a single point on appeal. He argues that there was not sufficient
competent evidence in the record to support the Commission's finding that the compromise
9
settlement covered the injury to the left wrist submitted in Lamy's February 2017 claim.
Lamy argues that the compromise settlement only bound the parties with respect to the
injury to Lamy's left shoulder.
Though Lamy characterizes his point on appeal as a challenge to whether sufficient
competent evidence supported the Commission's finding, Lamy acknowledges in his brief
that the Commission's factual findings are not in dispute. [Appellant's Brief, p. 2] The
argument portion of Lamy's brief thus does not develop a challenge to whether sufficient
competent evidence supported the Commission's findings, and instead challenges the
Commission's legal conclusion about the effect of the compromise settlement. As a result,
Lamy's brief fails to employ the three-part analytical framework required to determine
whether sufficient competent evidence supports the Commission's Final Award.
3
See
Lynch v. Treasurer of State of Mo., 635 S.W.3d 573, 581 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) (setting
forth the three-part analytical framework). As such, the argument portion of Lamy's brief
which asserts that we are obligated to review the Commission's legal conclusion about
scope of the compromise settlement de novo, does not align with Lamy's point on appeal.
"Rule 84.04 plainly sets forth the required contents of briefs filed in all appellate
courts," all of which are mandatory. Lexow v. Boeing Co., 643 S.W.3d 501, 505 (Mo. banc
3But then in his reply brief, Lamy analyzes his point on appeal using the three-prong analytical framework.
See Lynch v. Treasurer of State of Mo., 635 S.W.3d 573, 581 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) ("When a claimant challenges
the Commission's findings on [the basis that they are not supported by substantial and competent evidence], the
claimant must: (1) marshal all record evidence favorable to the award; (2) marshal all unfavorable evidence, subject
to the Commission's explicit or implicit credibility determinations; and (3) show, in the context of the whole record,
how the unfavorable evidence so overwhelms the favorable evidence and its reasonable inferences that the award is,
in context, not supported by competent and substantial evidence."). "[A]rguments omitted from an appellant's initial
brief may not be supplied in the reply brief, and we are precluded from addressing arguments made for the first time
in the reply brief." State ex rel. Schmitt v. Choi, 627 S.W.3d 1, 18 n.14 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021).
10
2022). Lamy's brief fails to comply with Rule 84.04(e), which provides that "[t]he
argument shall be limited to those errors included in the 'Points Relied On.'" If a point
relied on is not developed in the argument portion of the brief by showing how the
principles of law and facts of the case interact, it is deemed abandoned. In re S.H.P., 638
S.W.3d 524, 533 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021). And claimed errors that are raised only in the
argument portion of the brief but not contained in a point relied on are not preserved for
our review. State ex rel. Dalton v. Mo. Comm'n on Hum. Rts., 618 S.W.3d 640, 648 n.10
(Mo. App. W.D. 2020).
However, while briefing deficiencies support dismissal of an appeal, we are
permitted to reach the merits of the case in those limited scenarios where the brief gives
notice of the issue presented on appeal, so long as doing so will not require us to step into
the role of advocate. Lexow, 643 S.W.3d at 505, 509. Here, Lamy's point relied on
combines with the argument portion of his brief to permit us to comfortably conclude,
without stepping into the role of advocate, that Lamy is challenging whether the
Commission's uncontested factual findings support a legal conclusion that the compromise
settlement foreclosed the Commission's jurisdiction to consider the February 2017 claim
for injury to his left wrist. See section 287.495.1(3) (permitting an appellate court to review
whether the facts found by the Commission support the award). We address Lamy's point
on appeal accordingly.
Settlement agreements resolving workers' compensation claims are authorized by
section 287.390, which provides:
11
Parties to [workers' compensation claims] may enter into voluntary
agreements in settlement thereof, but no agreement by an employee . . . to
waive his or her rights under this chapter shall be valid, nor shall any
agreement of settlement or compromise of any dispute or claim for
compensation under this chapter be valid until approved by an administrative
law judge or the commission . . . . An administrative law judge, or the
commission, shall approve a settlement agreement as valid and enforceable
as long as the settlement is not the result of undue influence or fraud, the
employee fully understands his or her rights and benefits, and voluntarily
agrees to accept the terms of the agreement.
Section 287.390.1. Once a compromise settlement entered pursuant to section 287.390 is
approved by an ALJ, "the jurisdiction of the Commission is exhausted, and the matter is at
an end so far as the Commission is concerned." Derby v. Jackson Cnty., 141 S.W.3d 413,
416 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (quoting Shockley v. Laclede Elec. Co-op., 825 S.W.2d 44, 47
(Mo. App. S.D. 1992)).
Lamy's point on appeal does not contend that the compromise settlement was a
result of undue influence or fraud.4
Instead, Lamy contends that the compromise settlement
was limited in its scope to settlement of his left shoulder injury claim. He points to the fact
that the compromise settlement only included an agreed disability rating for the left
shoulder without reference to the left wrist.
Lamy's contention artificially focuses on an isolated provision in the compromise
settlement, and ignores that the compromise settlement expressly provides that "the
EMPLOYEE is forever closing out this claim under the Missouri Workers' Compensation
Law," and "that EMPLOYEE will receive no further compensation or medical aid by
4Lamy's reply brief summarily alleges that Lamy was "tricked" into entering into the compromise
settlement for injury to his left shoulder. Lamy's conclusory assertion is not self-proving, and in any event, "we are
precluded from addressing arguments made for the first time in the reply brief." State ex rel. Schmitt, 627 S.W.3d at
18 n.14.
12
reason of this accident/disease." (Emphasis added.) The "claim" and "accident/disease"
referred to in the compromise settlement is Lamy's August 2016 claim, which sought
compensation for injury to the "left upper extremity" brought on by repetitive injury.
Consistent with his claim of repetitive injury to the "left upper extremity," Lamy's
complaints to Dr. McNamara in August 2016 included pain in the left shoulder and
numbness and tingling in the left hand, both of which are anatomical components of the
left upper extremity.
Lamy does not challenge the Commission's finding that he knew he had been
diagnosed by both Dr. McNamara and Dr. Stuckmeyer with left carpal tunnel syndrome
before entering into the compromise settlement of his August 2016 claim. Lamy does not
challenge the Commission's finding that left carpal tunnel syndrome is a repetitive injury,
consistent with the nature of the "accident" identified in the August 2016 claim for injuries
to the left upper extremity. Lamy does not challenge the Commission's finding that he
entered into the compromise settlement of the August 2016 claim in exchange for
Employer's agreement to pay a lump sum of $14,000 based on an approximate disability
of 12.5 percent to Lamy's left shoulder in order to "settle[] all issues between the parties."
And Lamy does not challenge the Commission's conclusion that Dr. Rosenthal's opinion
that Lamy's left wrist injury was the result of a workplace accident on February 13, 2017,
was not credible. The Commission did not commit legal error when it found, based on the
uncontested facts, that pursuant to section 287.390, the compromise settlement exhausted
the Commission's jurisdiction to reopen the August 2016 claim in order to entertain the
February 2017 claim.
13
Lamy asks us to attach significance to Dr. McNamara's August 19, 2019 letter,
written after Lamy filed the February 2017 claim. Lamy argues that although he reported
tingling and numbness in his left hand to Dr. McNamara in August 2016, the August 19,
2019 letter confirms that Dr. McNamara made a medical decision to put off treating Lamy's
left carpal tunnel syndrome until Lamy recovered from surgery to his left shoulder. Lamy
thus contends that Dr. McNamara's conclusion that Lamy's left wrist injury was "related to
his origin[al] work injury dated 08/25/2016" was merely a medical opinion that was not
controlling on the issue of the scope of the compromise settlement. Lamy further intimates
that Employer's adjuster reached out to Dr. McNamara to secure the August 19, 2019 letter
in order to avoid paying for scheduled surgery on the left wrist, despite having authorized
and paid for diagnostic tests on Lamy's left wrist after the February 2017 claim was filed.5
Lamy's arguments have no bearing on the legal effect of the compromise settlement.
Dr. McNamara's August 19, 2019 letter underscores that Lamy knew he had a repetitive
injury to his left wrist (a portion of his left upper extremity) when he saw Dr. McNamara
in August 2016, and before he entered into the compromise settlement. Yet, despite this
knowledge (which was reinforced by Dr. Stuckmeyer's opinion), Lamy settled all issues
with the Employer involving his August 2016 claim for repetitive injury to the left upper
extremity.
5While Dr. McNamara's letter indicates that diagnostic testing was performed on Lamy's left wrist on
August 5, 2019, there is nothing in the record that explicitly provides that Employer's workers' compensation insurer
preauthorized that diagnostic testing or paid for the same. For the purposes of considering Lamy's point on appeal,
however, we infer from the record that, because Dr. McNamara's notes identify Employer's workers' compensation
insurer as Lamy's insurer, the workers' compensation insurer authorized, and later paid for, the diagnostic testing of
Lamy's left wrist.
14
Lamy asserts that the Commission's reliance on Miller v. U.S. Airways Group, Inc.,
316 S.W.3d 462 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010), was improper. In Miller, we affirmed the
Commission's dismissal of a successive claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome as a
result of repetitive trauma. Id. at 466. Lamy attempts to distinguish Miller because it
involved successive claims filed for injury to the same body part (the wrist), where his
successive claims involved injuries to different body parts. However, Lamy's August 2016
claim and February 2017 claim each alleged an identical repetitive injury. And though the
February 2017 claim was purportedly limited to the left wrist, the August 2016 claim
covered the left upper extremity, which includes the left wrist. The Commission's reliance
on Miller was not improper.
Lamy also challenges the Commission's reliance on Shockley v. Laclede Electric
Cooperative, 825 S.W.2d 44 (Mo. App. S.D. 1992), and Ritch v. Professional
Transportation, Inc., 599 S.W.3d 492 (Mo. App. S.D. 2020). In Shockley, our Southern
District held that where a workers' compensation settlement provided that the claimant
understood he would receive no further compensation or medical aid, the Commission was
deprived of jurisdiction over a later request to set aside the compromise settlement. 825
S.W.2d at 49. Similarly, in Ritch, the Southern District concluded that the Commission
correctly determined that it had no jurisdiction to set aside a compromise settlement where
the claimant argued his worsening medical condition rendered the compromise settlement
no longer reasonable. 599 S.W.3d at 493, 495. Both cases are squarely on point. While
Lamy did not explicitly ask the Commission to reopen the compromise settlement of his
August 2016 claim, consideration of the February 2017 claim would have had the same
15
effect. The Commission did not err in relying on Shockley and Ritch to conclude that it
was without jurisdiction to reopen the August 2016 claim in order to consider the February
2017 claim.
6
Finally, Lamy relies on our decision in Treasurer of State of Missouri-Custodian of
Second Injury Fund v. Steck, 341 S.W.3d 869 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011), to argue that the
compromise settlement did not foreclose the Commission's consideration of the February
2017 claim. Steck is inapposite. In Steck, we considered whether a compromise settlement
between a claimant and an employer that included an agreement about the extent of
permanent partial disability could be relied on by the Commission in later determining
Second Injury Fund liability, where the Second Injury Fund was not a party to the
agreement. Id. at 870. We held that "such a[ compromise settlement] agreement does not
bind the Commission, but 'does serve as relevant evidence of the nature and extent of the
employee's permanent disability attributable to the primary injury.'" Id. at 873 (quoting
Totten v. Treasurer of State of Mo., 116 S.W.3d 624, 628 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003)). Steck is
not relevant to determining the scope of a compromise settlement, and thus the extent to
which a compromise settlement is binding on the parties to the agreement.
6Lamy also claims that the Commission's reliance on Krysl v. Treasurer of Missouri, 591 S.W.3d 13 (Mo.
App. E.D. 2019), for the proposition that an occupational disease becomes an injury at the time it causes an
employee to become disabled and seek medical treatment was erroneous because the date for compensability of
Lamy's left carpal tunnel syndrome was not an issue in the case. Lamy, however, does not explain how citation to
Krysl affected the Commission's Final Award. See Burns v. Taylor, 589 S.W.3d 614, 626 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019)
("'Merely asserting error without making a showing of how that error was somehow prejudicial is not sufficient for
reversal.'" (quoting Furlong Cos. v. City of Kansas City, 189 S.W.3d 157, 166 (Mo. banc 2006))).
16
The Commission did not commit legal error when it concluded that the compromise
settlement exhausted its jurisdiction to entertain Lamy's February 2017 claim. Lamy's
point is denied.
Saint Louis, MO – Personal Injury lawyer represented Appellant with appealing from the denial of his workers' compensation benefits.
Lamy began working for Stahl Specialty Company ("Employer"), a company that
manufactures automotive and marine parts, in 1987. In June 2017, Lamy filed a claim for
compensation with the Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations Division of
Workers' Compensation ("Division of Workers' Compensation") for an injury related to his
"[l]eft upper extremity" suffered on August 26, 2016 ("August 2016 claim"). The August
2016 claim alleged a repetitive injury as follows:
[Lamy], while in the course and scope of his employment suffered an
accident, series of accidents or occupational disease while performing
foundry processes of repetitive lifting and throwing aluminum which were
the prevailing factors in his resultant injuries and disabilities. [Lamy] is
entitled to receive and makes demand for such medical care and treatment as
will cure and relieve him from the effects of the injuries . . . . [Lamy] is
further entitled to receive and makes demand for temporary total/partial
disability benefits . . . .
Employer referred Lamy to Dr. Gerald McNamara ("Dr. McNamara"). Dr.
McNamara examined Lamy on August 31, 2016, five days after the date of the alleged
injury to Lamy's upper left extremity. During that visit, Lamy complained of left shoulder
pain, and numbness and tingling in his left hand.
After ruling out more conservative treatment options, Dr. McNamara performed
surgery on Lamy's left shoulder on October 11, 2016. On October 24, 2016, Dr. McNamara
released Lamy to return to right-handed work only, but limited Lamy to lifting no more
than ten pounds with his right hand. Dr. McNamara also prescribed physical therapy for
1When reviewing the Commission's final award, we review the facts neutrally, and we neither view the
facts in the light most favorable to the final award nor make all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to
the final award. Ritchie v. Silgan Containers Mfg. Corp., 625 S.W.3d 787, 791 n.2 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021). Any
credibility determinations made by the Commission, however, are binding. Id.
3
Lamy on that date. Lamy had additional follow-up appointments with Dr. McNamara on
January 16, 2017, and on February 13, 2017. Following the February 13, 2017
appointment, Dr. McNamara determined that Lamy was ready for work conditioning to
prepare him for a full return to work, and released Lamy to work with restrictions that
limited lifting with his left arm to five pounds and no higher than shoulder height. In the
notes from the February 13, 2017 appointment, Dr. McNamara indicated that Lamy still
had carpal tunnel syndrome in the left wrist that might require future attention.
Following additional outpatient physical therapy and work conditioning, Dr.
McNamara released Lamy to work without restrictions on March 13, 2017. Lamy had a
follow-up appointment with Dr. McNamara on April 10, 2017, after which Dr. McNamara
concluded that Lamy "ha[d] reached maximum medical improvement" and released Lamy
from care. Dr. McNamara concluded that Lamy had a 4 percent permanent partial
disability to his "left upper extremity" that would not benefit from future medical or
prescriptive care.
Lamy's attorney referred Lamy to Dr. James Stuckmeyer ("Dr. Stuckmeyer") for a
medical evaluation. Lamy was evaluated by Dr. Stuckmeyer on November 9, 2017. Lamy
reported that, while he had returned to regular work, he continued to have ongoing
symptoms in his left shoulder. Lamy also reported to Dr. Stuckmeyer that he was
experiencing "symptoms of numbness and tingling in [his] left hand, nocturnal awakeness,
as well as decreased grip strength." Dr. Stuckmeyer concluded that Lamy required
additional treatment, including physical therapy and a repeat arthroscopic procedure, for
his left shoulder. Dr. Stuckmeyer concluded that, without additional treatment, Lamy had
4
a 35 percent permanent partial disability to his left shoulder. Dr. Stuckmeyer also opined
that Lamy still had evidence of left carpal tunnel syndrome that was related to Lamy's work
activities and that might require future surgical intervention.
After receiving the rating from Dr. McNamara for disability to the left upper
extremity and the rating from Dr. Stuckmeyer for disability to the left shoulder, Lamy and
Employer entered into a stipulation for compromise settlement ("compromise settlement")
of Lamy's August 2016 claim. The compromise settlement provided that Employer would
pay Lamy a lump sum of $14,000, representing a 12.5 percent disability rating for Lamy's
left shoulder. The compromise settlement expressly provided that it "settle[d] all issues
between the parties." The compromise settlement further provided:
THE EMPLOYEE UNDERSTANDS: by entering into this settlement,
except as provided by Section 287.140.8, RSMo, the EMPLOYEE is forever
closing out this claim under the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law; that
EMPLOYEE will receive no further compensation or medical aid by reason
of this accident/disease; that EMPLOYEE has the right to a hearing of the
EMPLOYEE'S claim, which may result in EMPLOYEE receiving more
money or less money than is provided by this settlement; that
EMPLOYER/INSURER and/or SECOND INJURY FUND is/are released
from all liability for this accident/disease upon approval by the
Administrative Law Judge. . . . The PARTIES by their signatures below agree
to the settlement, and the PARTIES request and recommend that this
settlement be approved and that the settlement is in accordance with the
rights of the parties. The EMPLOYER and EMPLOYEE indicate that the
settlement is not the result of undue influence or fraud; the EMPLOYEE fully
understands his/her rights and benefits; and the EMPLOYEE voluntarily
agrees to accept the terms of the agreement.
Lamy initialed to indicate that he had "full awareness of the consequences of this settlement
as set out above." Lamy, his counsel, and Employer's counsel signed the compromise
5
settlement, and an administrative law judge ("ALJ") approved the compromise settlement
on May 2, 2018.
Lamy filed a second workers' compensation claim on June 26, 2018, alleging that
on February 13, 2017, Lamy suffered an injury to his left wrist ("February 2017 claim").
February 13, 2017, was the date on which Dr. McNamara noted that Lamy still suffered
from left carpal tunnel syndrome that might require future attention. As had been the case
with the August 2016 claim, the February 2017 claim alleged a repetitive workplace injury
as follows:
[Lamy], while in the course and scope of his employment suffered an
accident, series of accidents or occupational disease while performing
foundry processes of repetitive lifting and throwing aluminum which were
the prevailing factors in his resultant injuries and disabilities. [Lamy] is
entitled to receive and makes demand for such medical care and treatment as
will cure and relieve him from the effects of the injuries . . . . [Lamy] is
further entitled to receive and makes demand for temporary total/partial
disability benefits . . . .
In response to the February 2017 claim, Employer again referred Lamy to Dr.
McNamara. Lamy was then scheduled for surgery on the left wrist. On August 19, 2019,
a few days prior to the scheduled surgery, Dr. McNamara wrote a letter to the Employer's
adjuster. In the letter, Dr. McNamara noted that Lamy had complained of numbness and
tingling in his left-hand in August 2016, and that treatment for Lamy's left hand "was put
on hold while he recovered from shoulder surgery." Dr. McNamara opined that Lamy's
current complaints about his left hand were related to the repetitive work injury that had
been the subject of the August 2016 claim. Lamy's scheduled surgery was cancelled.
6
Lamy retained Dr. Anne Rosenthal ("Dr. Rosenthal") to conduct a medical
evaluation and to review his medical records in July 2020. Dr. Rosenthal concluded that
Lamy sustained a work-related injury on February 13, 2017, that was the prevailing factor
in causing left carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Rosenthal's report did note that Lamy had first
reported numbness and tingling in the left hand when he was seen by Dr. McNamara in
August of 2016. Dr. Rosenthal was not aware that Lamy was not using his left hand from
October 2016 (when he had left shoulder surgery) until he was released to work without
restrictions in March 2017. Dr. Rosenthal relied on Dr. McNamara's February 13, 2017
medical notes acknowledging that Lamy had left carpal tunnel syndrome to conclude that
Lamy sustained a work-related injury on February 13, 2017.
On May 4, 2021, an ALJ heard Lamy's February 2017 claim. Among the issues
before the ALJ was whether Lamy's "request for medical benefits and compensation [was]
barred by the prior settlement of the August 26, 2016 . . . injury." Lamy testified at the
hearing, and the ALJ received Lamy's medical records, Lamy's August 2016 claim, and the
compromise settlement as exhibits.
The ALJ issued a written decision on July 8, 2021, denying Lamy's claim ("ALJ
Award"). The ALJ Award made multiple findings of fact, including a finding that Dr.
McNamara's opinions were more credible than Dr. Rosenthal's opinions. The ALJ Award
thus credited Dr. McNamara's opinion that the prevailing factor for Lamy's left carpal
tunnel syndrome was the same as the prevailing factor for his left shoulder injury: the
repetitive work activities that gave rise to the August 2016 claim. The ALJ Award noted
that Lamy voluntarily elected to settle his August 2016 claim with the knowledge that both
7
Dr. McNamara and Dr. Stuckmeyer had diagnosed him with left carpal tunnel syndrome
that might require future surgery, and with the knowledge that the compromise settlement
settled "all issues between the parties." The ALJ Award concluded that the August 25,
2016 work injury and resulting August 2016 claim were resolved in the compromise
settlement, so that, absent proof of fraud or mistake, the ALJ was without jurisdiction to
reopen the August 2016 claim to amend the compromise settlement to include
compensation for injuries to Lamy's left wrist.
Lamy appealed the ALJ Award to the Commission. By a 2-1 vote, the Commission
affirmed the ALJ Award and incorporated it by reference into the Commission's final award
denying compensation ("Final Award").
Lamy appeals.
Standard of Review
We review the findings and conclusions of the Commission, not of the ALJ. Greig
v. McCaleb, 638 S.W.3d 600, 603 n.4 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021). "[W]here[, as here,] the
Commission affirms the ALJ's Award and incorporates the ALJ's findings by reference into
the Commission's Final Award, . . . .we review for error the ALJ's findings and conclusions
as adopted by the Commission." Id.
Section 287.495.12
sets forth the standard we must apply when reviewing the
Commission's Final Award:
2All statutory references are to RSMo 2016 as supplemented through the date of February 13, 2017, the
alleged date of Lamy's work injury set forth in his February 2017 claim, unless otherwise indicated.
8
The court, on appeal, shall 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.
"The Commission's decision must be 'supported by competent and substantial evidence
upon the whole record.'" Klecka v. Treasurer of Mo., 644 S.W.3d 562, 565 (Mo. banc
2022) (quoting Mo. Const. article V, section 18). In determining whether the
Commission's decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence, we defer to the
Commission's determinations as to the credibility of the witnesses and as to the weight
given to conflicting evidence. Id. at 565-66. "We 'will affirm the Commission's decision
if [we] determine[] that the Commission could have reasonably made its findings, and
reached its result, upon consideration of all the evidence before it.'" Moss v. Treasurer of
State of Mo.--Custodian of Second Injury Fund, 570 S.W.3d 110, 115 (Mo. App. W.D.
2018) (quoting Treasurer of State of Mo. v. Majors, 506 S.W.3d 348, 352 (Mo. App. W.D.
2016)). If, however, the Commission's decision is based on its interpretation and
application of the law, we review the Commission's legal conclusions and decision de novo.
Id.
Analysis
Lamy presents a single point on appeal. He argues that there was not sufficient
competent evidence in the record to support the Commission's finding that the compromise
9
settlement covered the injury to the left wrist submitted in Lamy's February 2017 claim.
Lamy argues that the compromise settlement only bound the parties with respect to the
injury to Lamy's left shoulder.
Though Lamy characterizes his point on appeal as a challenge to whether sufficient
competent evidence supported the Commission's finding, Lamy acknowledges in his brief
that the Commission's factual findings are not in dispute. [Appellant's Brief, p. 2] The
argument portion of Lamy's brief thus does not develop a challenge to whether sufficient
competent evidence supported the Commission's findings, and instead challenges the
Commission's legal conclusion about the effect of the compromise settlement. As a result,
Lamy's brief fails to employ the three-part analytical framework required to determine
whether sufficient competent evidence supports the Commission's Final Award.
3
See
Lynch v. Treasurer of State of Mo., 635 S.W.3d 573, 581 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) (setting
forth the three-part analytical framework). As such, the argument portion of Lamy's brief
which asserts that we are obligated to review the Commission's legal conclusion about
scope of the compromise settlement de novo, does not align with Lamy's point on appeal.
"Rule 84.04 plainly sets forth the required contents of briefs filed in all appellate
courts," all of which are mandatory. Lexow v. Boeing Co., 643 S.W.3d 501, 505 (Mo. banc
3But then in his reply brief, Lamy analyzes his point on appeal using the three-prong analytical framework.
See Lynch v. Treasurer of State of Mo., 635 S.W.3d 573, 581 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) ("When a claimant challenges
the Commission's findings on [the basis that they are not supported by substantial and competent evidence], the
claimant must: (1) marshal all record evidence favorable to the award; (2) marshal all unfavorable evidence, subject
to the Commission's explicit or implicit credibility determinations; and (3) show, in the context of the whole record,
how the unfavorable evidence so overwhelms the favorable evidence and its reasonable inferences that the award is,
in context, not supported by competent and substantial evidence."). "[A]rguments omitted from an appellant's initial
brief may not be supplied in the reply brief, and we are precluded from addressing arguments made for the first time
in the reply brief." State ex rel. Schmitt v. Choi, 627 S.W.3d 1, 18 n.14 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021).
10
2022). Lamy's brief fails to comply with Rule 84.04(e), which provides that "[t]he
argument shall be limited to those errors included in the 'Points Relied On.'" If a point
relied on is not developed in the argument portion of the brief by showing how the
principles of law and facts of the case interact, it is deemed abandoned. In re S.H.P., 638
S.W.3d 524, 533 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021). And claimed errors that are raised only in the
argument portion of the brief but not contained in a point relied on are not preserved for
our review. State ex rel. Dalton v. Mo. Comm'n on Hum. Rts., 618 S.W.3d 640, 648 n.10
(Mo. App. W.D. 2020).
However, while briefing deficiencies support dismissal of an appeal, we are
permitted to reach the merits of the case in those limited scenarios where the brief gives
notice of the issue presented on appeal, so long as doing so will not require us to step into
the role of advocate. Lexow, 643 S.W.3d at 505, 509. Here, Lamy's point relied on
combines with the argument portion of his brief to permit us to comfortably conclude,
without stepping into the role of advocate, that Lamy is challenging whether the
Commission's uncontested factual findings support a legal conclusion that the compromise
settlement foreclosed the Commission's jurisdiction to consider the February 2017 claim
for injury to his left wrist. See section 287.495.1(3) (permitting an appellate court to review
whether the facts found by the Commission support the award). We address Lamy's point
on appeal accordingly.
Settlement agreements resolving workers' compensation claims are authorized by
section 287.390, which provides:
11
Parties to [workers' compensation claims] may enter into voluntary
agreements in settlement thereof, but no agreement by an employee . . . to
waive his or her rights under this chapter shall be valid, nor shall any
agreement of settlement or compromise of any dispute or claim for
compensation under this chapter be valid until approved by an administrative
law judge or the commission . . . . An administrative law judge, or the
commission, shall approve a settlement agreement as valid and enforceable
as long as the settlement is not the result of undue influence or fraud, the
employee fully understands his or her rights and benefits, and voluntarily
agrees to accept the terms of the agreement.
Section 287.390.1. Once a compromise settlement entered pursuant to section 287.390 is
approved by an ALJ, "the jurisdiction of the Commission is exhausted, and the matter is at
an end so far as the Commission is concerned." Derby v. Jackson Cnty., 141 S.W.3d 413,
416 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (quoting Shockley v. Laclede Elec. Co-op., 825 S.W.2d 44, 47
(Mo. App. S.D. 1992)).
Lamy's point on appeal does not contend that the compromise settlement was a
result of undue influence or fraud.4
Instead, Lamy contends that the compromise settlement
was limited in its scope to settlement of his left shoulder injury claim. He points to the fact
that the compromise settlement only included an agreed disability rating for the left
shoulder without reference to the left wrist.
Lamy's contention artificially focuses on an isolated provision in the compromise
settlement, and ignores that the compromise settlement expressly provides that "the
EMPLOYEE is forever closing out this claim under the Missouri Workers' Compensation
Law," and "that EMPLOYEE will receive no further compensation or medical aid by
4Lamy's reply brief summarily alleges that Lamy was "tricked" into entering into the compromise
settlement for injury to his left shoulder. Lamy's conclusory assertion is not self-proving, and in any event, "we are
precluded from addressing arguments made for the first time in the reply brief." State ex rel. Schmitt, 627 S.W.3d at
18 n.14.
12
reason of this accident/disease." (Emphasis added.) The "claim" and "accident/disease"
referred to in the compromise settlement is Lamy's August 2016 claim, which sought
compensation for injury to the "left upper extremity" brought on by repetitive injury.
Consistent with his claim of repetitive injury to the "left upper extremity," Lamy's
complaints to Dr. McNamara in August 2016 included pain in the left shoulder and
numbness and tingling in the left hand, both of which are anatomical components of the
left upper extremity.
Lamy does not challenge the Commission's finding that he knew he had been
diagnosed by both Dr. McNamara and Dr. Stuckmeyer with left carpal tunnel syndrome
before entering into the compromise settlement of his August 2016 claim. Lamy does not
challenge the Commission's finding that left carpal tunnel syndrome is a repetitive injury,
consistent with the nature of the "accident" identified in the August 2016 claim for injuries
to the left upper extremity. Lamy does not challenge the Commission's finding that he
entered into the compromise settlement of the August 2016 claim in exchange for
Employer's agreement to pay a lump sum of $14,000 based on an approximate disability
of 12.5 percent to Lamy's left shoulder in order to "settle[] all issues between the parties."
And Lamy does not challenge the Commission's conclusion that Dr. Rosenthal's opinion
that Lamy's left wrist injury was the result of a workplace accident on February 13, 2017,
was not credible. The Commission did not commit legal error when it found, based on the
uncontested facts, that pursuant to section 287.390, the compromise settlement exhausted
the Commission's jurisdiction to reopen the August 2016 claim in order to entertain the
February 2017 claim.
13
Lamy asks us to attach significance to Dr. McNamara's August 19, 2019 letter,
written after Lamy filed the February 2017 claim. Lamy argues that although he reported
tingling and numbness in his left hand to Dr. McNamara in August 2016, the August 19,
2019 letter confirms that Dr. McNamara made a medical decision to put off treating Lamy's
left carpal tunnel syndrome until Lamy recovered from surgery to his left shoulder. Lamy
thus contends that Dr. McNamara's conclusion that Lamy's left wrist injury was "related to
his origin[al] work injury dated 08/25/2016" was merely a medical opinion that was not
controlling on the issue of the scope of the compromise settlement. Lamy further intimates
that Employer's adjuster reached out to Dr. McNamara to secure the August 19, 2019 letter
in order to avoid paying for scheduled surgery on the left wrist, despite having authorized
and paid for diagnostic tests on Lamy's left wrist after the February 2017 claim was filed.5
Lamy's arguments have no bearing on the legal effect of the compromise settlement.
Dr. McNamara's August 19, 2019 letter underscores that Lamy knew he had a repetitive
injury to his left wrist (a portion of his left upper extremity) when he saw Dr. McNamara
in August 2016, and before he entered into the compromise settlement. Yet, despite this
knowledge (which was reinforced by Dr. Stuckmeyer's opinion), Lamy settled all issues
with the Employer involving his August 2016 claim for repetitive injury to the left upper
extremity.
5While Dr. McNamara's letter indicates that diagnostic testing was performed on Lamy's left wrist on
August 5, 2019, there is nothing in the record that explicitly provides that Employer's workers' compensation insurer
preauthorized that diagnostic testing or paid for the same. For the purposes of considering Lamy's point on appeal,
however, we infer from the record that, because Dr. McNamara's notes identify Employer's workers' compensation
insurer as Lamy's insurer, the workers' compensation insurer authorized, and later paid for, the diagnostic testing of
Lamy's left wrist.
14
Lamy asserts that the Commission's reliance on Miller v. U.S. Airways Group, Inc.,
316 S.W.3d 462 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010), was improper. In Miller, we affirmed the
Commission's dismissal of a successive claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome as a
result of repetitive trauma. Id. at 466. Lamy attempts to distinguish Miller because it
involved successive claims filed for injury to the same body part (the wrist), where his
successive claims involved injuries to different body parts. However, Lamy's August 2016
claim and February 2017 claim each alleged an identical repetitive injury. And though the
February 2017 claim was purportedly limited to the left wrist, the August 2016 claim
covered the left upper extremity, which includes the left wrist. The Commission's reliance
on Miller was not improper.
Lamy also challenges the Commission's reliance on Shockley v. Laclede Electric
Cooperative, 825 S.W.2d 44 (Mo. App. S.D. 1992), and Ritch v. Professional
Transportation, Inc., 599 S.W.3d 492 (Mo. App. S.D. 2020). In Shockley, our Southern
District held that where a workers' compensation settlement provided that the claimant
understood he would receive no further compensation or medical aid, the Commission was
deprived of jurisdiction over a later request to set aside the compromise settlement. 825
S.W.2d at 49. Similarly, in Ritch, the Southern District concluded that the Commission
correctly determined that it had no jurisdiction to set aside a compromise settlement where
the claimant argued his worsening medical condition rendered the compromise settlement
no longer reasonable. 599 S.W.3d at 493, 495. Both cases are squarely on point. While
Lamy did not explicitly ask the Commission to reopen the compromise settlement of his
August 2016 claim, consideration of the February 2017 claim would have had the same
15
effect. The Commission did not err in relying on Shockley and Ritch to conclude that it
was without jurisdiction to reopen the August 2016 claim in order to consider the February
2017 claim.
6
Finally, Lamy relies on our decision in Treasurer of State of Missouri-Custodian of
Second Injury Fund v. Steck, 341 S.W.3d 869 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011), to argue that the
compromise settlement did not foreclose the Commission's consideration of the February
2017 claim. Steck is inapposite. In Steck, we considered whether a compromise settlement
between a claimant and an employer that included an agreement about the extent of
permanent partial disability could be relied on by the Commission in later determining
Second Injury Fund liability, where the Second Injury Fund was not a party to the
agreement. Id. at 870. We held that "such a[ compromise settlement] agreement does not
bind the Commission, but 'does serve as relevant evidence of the nature and extent of the
employee's permanent disability attributable to the primary injury.'" Id. at 873 (quoting
Totten v. Treasurer of State of Mo., 116 S.W.3d 624, 628 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003)). Steck is
not relevant to determining the scope of a compromise settlement, and thus the extent to
which a compromise settlement is binding on the parties to the agreement.
6Lamy also claims that the Commission's reliance on Krysl v. Treasurer of Missouri, 591 S.W.3d 13 (Mo.
App. E.D. 2019), for the proposition that an occupational disease becomes an injury at the time it causes an
employee to become disabled and seek medical treatment was erroneous because the date for compensability of
Lamy's left carpal tunnel syndrome was not an issue in the case. Lamy, however, does not explain how citation to
Krysl affected the Commission's Final Award. See Burns v. Taylor, 589 S.W.3d 614, 626 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019)
("'Merely asserting error without making a showing of how that error was somehow prejudicial is not sufficient for
reversal.'" (quoting Furlong Cos. v. City of Kansas City, 189 S.W.3d 157, 166 (Mo. banc 2006))).
16
The Commission did not commit legal error when it concluded that the compromise
settlement exhausted its jurisdiction to entertain Lamy's February 2017 claim. Lamy's
point is denied.
Outcome:
The Commission's Final Award is affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Ronald Lamy vs. Stahl Speciality Company?
The outcome was: The Commission's Final Award is affirmed.
Which court heard Ronald Lamy vs. Stahl Speciality Company?
This case was heard in <center><h3><b> MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS</b> <br> <br> <b><h3><i>On appeal from The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission </i</center> </h3> </b></i>, MO. The presiding judge was Cynthia L. Martin.
Who were the attorneys in Ronald Lamy vs. Stahl Speciality Company?
Plaintiff's attorney: Saint Louis, MO - Best Personal Injury Lawyer Directory Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World. Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement Counselor: MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public. MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800. Defendant's attorney: Joseph R. Ebbert.
When was Ronald Lamy vs. Stahl Speciality Company decided?
This case was decided on September 11, 2022.