Smith v. Climate Engineering’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It was admitted by the claimant that he could not point to an actual event that caused his injury. He alleges that the strenuous work that day caused the injury, not a specific event. So, has the employee had an accident under the Missouri Workers’ Compensation law? An accident requires the employee to suffer a compensable injury. “An injury is compensable if it is clearly work related. An injury is clearly work related if work was a substantial factor in the cause of the resulting medical condition or disability. An injury is not compensable merely because work was a triggering or precipitating factor.” RSMO 287.020.2. The statute further states in RSMO 287.020.3 that “ordinary, gradual deterioration or progressive degeneration of the body caused by aging shall not be compen-sable, except where the deterioration or degeneration follows as an incident of employment.” .... All three doctors agree that the diagnosis is spondylosis and stenosis at C5-6 which is affecting the C6 nerve root.... Stenosis is the narrowing of the spinal canal within the vertebrae due to the vertebrae growing shut on the spinal cord. Spondylosis is the abnormal fusion or growing together of two or more verte brae. Both of these problems develop over a length of time. The employee’s injury was an ordinary, gradual deterioration of the body which is not compensa-ble since there was no evidence indicating it was an incident of employment. Also, work was not a substantial factor in the cause of the injury”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moriarty v. City of Kirksville

2. “Our Supreme Court held that the term “accident” includes not only those injuries which result from an unforeseen and unusual event but also includes those cases where the result, the injury itself, was unforeseen or unexpected. An injury is compensable when the performance of the usual and customary duties leads to physical breakdown or a change in pathology. The focus is on whether an injury has occurred, rather than what immediately proceeded the injury. The cause of an injury need not be a single event, but rather the employee is to be compensated for gradual and progressive injuries which result from repeated or constant exposure to on-the-job hazards. In essence, Wolf-geher permits the concept of ‘accident’ to encompass gradual and progressive injuries resulting from repeated exposure to on-the-job hazards. Wolfgeher did not change the necessity that the injury arise out of and in the course of employment. The injury must clearly be job related.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Holaus v. William J. Zickell Co.

3. “1. In this chapter the term “occupational disease” is hereby defined to mean, unless a different meaning is clearly indicated by the context, an identifiable disease arising with or without human fault out of and in the course of the employment. Ordinary diseases of life to which the general public is exposed outside of the employment shall not be compensable, except where the diseases follow as an incident of an occupational disease as defined in this section. The disease need not to have been forseen or expected but after its contraction it must appear to have had its origin in a risk connected with the employment and to have flowed from that source as a rational consequence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lammert v. Vess Beverages, Inc.