State Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Poorly Worded Second-Injury Fund Law

Friday, October 26, 2018 | 0

The Missouri Supreme Court this week heard arguments in a case that could decide whether a law governing the state's second-injury fund is unconstitutional because it's poorly worded. 

Justice Laura Stith

The state legislature in 2014 changed the rules for a second injury, disallowing benefits for workers with permanent partial disability but keeping benefits for those with permanent total disability, according to a news report.

Attorneys for Douglas Crosby, a carpenter with previous injuries who fell from a ladder in 2014, argued that wording in the law is conflicting and does not bar him from receiving benefits.

After he fell from the ladder and injured his knee, he agreed to settle for a 20% partial disability. But an administrative law judge and the Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission both denied the claim, and Crosby appealed to the Supreme Court.

At one point in the proceedings Wednesday, Supreme Court Justice Laura Stith said the law was hard to follow. The section contains "very, very technical language and it’s not very clear in the way it’s written.”

An assistant attorney general for Missouri argued that, regardless of the wording, the intent of the law was to reduce expenses because the second-injury fund at the time was nearly insolvent, according to the news report.

A lawyer for Crosby noted that if the fund failed to cover partially disabled employees, businesses that pay the surcharge that supports the fund would be reluctant to hire previously injured workers.

The court could rule later this year.