Dunn v. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund

272 S.W.3d 267 (2009)

From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Dunn v. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund

Missouri Court of Appeals
272 S.W.3d 267 (2009)

Facts

Edward Dunn (plaintiff) was employed by Astoris (defendant) when he injured his shoulder during work in March 2001. Dunn had various preexisting injuries when the 2001 injury occurred, including injuries to his shoulder. In 2004 Dunn was examined by Dr. Adeluola Lipede. Dr. Lipede did not explain how much the preexisting shoulder injury accounted for the permanent partial-disability ratings he gave Dunn because of Dunn’s shoulder. In 2005 Dunn was examined by rehabilitation counselor James England. In a vocational-rehabilitation evaluation, England concluded Dunn would likely be unable to compete for employment in the labor market. In 2006 Dr. Lipede examined Dunn again and found that Dunn had an increase in his limitations. Dunn filed for permanent total-disability benefits against Astoris and the Second Injury Fund (SIF) (defendant). In February 2007, there was a hearing to determine SIF’s liability. Dunn provided testimony and various exhibits, including multiple physician records and depositions, and England’s evaluation. Dr. Lipede’s testimony showed his decision that Dunn was not employable was based on restrictions from prior doctors who found Dunn employable. England testified regarding his evaluation, which was based on Dunn’s own statements. SIF did not present witnesses or evidence. The administrative-law judge (ALJ) found that the combination of Dunn’s preexisting conditions and the 2001 injury created a substantially greater disability. The ALJ found Dr. Lipede’s testimony unpersuasive and England’s testimony not credible, and the ALJ found that Dunn did not prove he was unable to compete in the open market. Dunn was awarded permanent partial-disability benefits from SIF, but not permanent total-disability benefits. Dunn filed for review with the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (the commission). The commission affirmed and adopted the ALJ’s award. Dunn appealed, arguing the commission erred in denying permanent total-disability benefits.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Norton, J.)

Dissent (Cohen, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 789,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 789,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 789,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership