Missouri: Court Finds Denial of Treatment While Carrier Investigates Comp Claim

Missouri: Court Finds Denial of Treatment While Carrier Investigates Comp Claim

An employer has an obligation to provide medical treatment for a work-related injury when it received a request for care even if the employer has not finished its investigation, according to the recent court of appeals case, Downing v. McDonald's Sirloin Stockade, 2014 Mo App. Lexis 37 (lexis.com), 2014 Mo App. Lexis 37 (Lexis Advance) (Jan 15, 2014).

Downing involved a waitress who had back pain  and the carrier would not authorize surgery because the carrier wanted more time to investigate the claim.  Claimant  initially attributed the symptoms to an accident months earlier bending over a table and she later hired an expert who attributed her disc herniation to an occupational disease.  At the time of her request for care the treating physician indicated that her condition was chronic but did not attribute it to an occupational disease.

When claimant requested care several months later, the employer authorized claimant to have an MRI and see a surgeon but declined to authorize surgery in order to further investigate the claim.  Dr. Ibsen recommended surgery on June 14, claimant was told it would was denied pending investigation in a conversation on June 20, and claimant proceeded with surgery immediately resulting in two operations. The ALJ inferred a finding the employer's physician regarded the condition work-related by referring claimant to a surgeon.  The claimant's expert concluded claimant herniated a disc from repetitive bending in her job as a waitress.  The employer's manager testified that the waitresses complain their backs hurt all the time and he rubs their back and shoulders to alleviate their various aches and pains. The ALJ awarded the rating provided by claimant's expert and adopted the causation opinion as the employer offered no expert opinion.  The ALJ found that the employer in these circumstances had not denied or neglected to provide care and had previously tendered evaluations with an MRI and a surgeon.

The Commission reversed and awarded further payment of the medical bills.  It noted the employer had a duty to provide care when it received a request for care.  In this case, there was no evidence of an election for claimant to seek her own doctor for treatment when she treated with the doctor selected by the employer.  The Commission noted it was a "reasonable concern" that the employer might delay authorization to develop a defense.  "We do not believe that employer's statutory right to direct treatment invested this employer with the right to tell employee to ignore the recommendation from Dr. Ipsen and wait, in severe and unrelenting pain, for no other reason than to allow Ms. Henderson time to build her case for denying the claim altogether."  The ALJ had found claimant's own expert testified the need for surgery was not an immediate "emergency" treatment, 2013 MO WCLR 65 (lexis.com), 2013 MO WCLR 65 (Lexis Advance), suggesting the Commission may have made its own finding that the pain was unrelenting.

The court of appeals rejected  the employer's appeal  that claimant had to prove authorization or a need for emergency treatment to order payment of the bills.  The employer did not contest claimant had an occupational disease or that the treatment was unreasonable or that additional investigation would have changed that determination.  Unlike other cases, claimant had sought treatment from a physician selected by the employer and provided notice of her intention to proceed with immediate treatment after the employer had tendered evaluations with other providers.  The Court did not adopt the Commission's finding that the claimant had unrelenting pain or the Commission's implication that the employer was contriving an excuse not to pay benefits.

The takeaway from the case is that a Missouri employer  who has the right to select a comp provider can be on the hook when its own expert recommends surgery and has to decide quickly to fish or cut bait.

Source: Martin Klug, Huck, Howe & Tobin. Read Martin Klug’s Mo. Workers’ Comp Alerts.



Price $99*; Books shipping now to customers! 


Keep track of how the workers' comp landscape is changing with this 400+ page compendium. Here's what you get: 

  • A 50 state survey at a glance of workers' comp-related legislation, including selected drug bills, with commentary from 27 defense attorneys, 16 claimant's attorneys, and National expert Thomas A. Robinson, staff writer for Larson's Workers' Compensation Law
  • In-depth analysis and insight on key issues, including exclusive remedy, medical marijuana, opt outs, Affordable Care Act & much more
  • Larson's Spotlight on interesting cases for 2013, written by national expert Thomas A. Robinson

View the brochure & table of contents.

View sample pages.


Order online or contact Christine Hyatt at  ph. 937-247-8166, or Email: Christine.E.Hyatt@lexisnexis.com.


*Price does not include sales tax, shipping or handling. Price subject to change without notice.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site