Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, Second Division
FROM LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
E. SCOTT, J.
Engineering Services (CES) appeals a workers'
compensation award to Mark Odom of past and future medical
expenses and permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. For
reasons stated herein, we grant in part CES's challenge
to past medical expenses, but otherwise affirm the award.
who installed and serviced photo-lab equipment for CES,
injured his elbow, back, and knee in June 2012 while moving a
250-pound photo printer. CES provided medical treatment
through Dr. Lennard and others, including surgery to repair
Odom's biceps tendon followed by physical therapy.
discomfort continued. Suspecting complex regional pain
syndrome (CRPS), Dr. Lennard referred Odom for stellate
ganglion block treatments and kept him on physical therapy,
pain management, and work restrictions. Despite these
interventions, Odom's arm and shoulder pain, weakness,
and loss of function persisted.
August 2013, Odom's physical therapist recommended
discharging Odom "due to plateauing of symptoms."
Dr. Lennard did so on August 26, 2013, stating that Odom had
reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and advising Odom
to reduce his activity to see if his arm would improve.
reduced his activity. His arm did not get better. He went to
his primary-care physician, who referred him to doctors who
confirmed CRPS and provided physical therapy and pain
management through the September 2017 workers'
compensation hearing. Odom submitted these medical expenses
to his wife's health insurance.
chronic pain and physical limitations, Odom has never
returned to work. A vocational rehabilitation consultant
testified that Odom was unemployable in the open labor
market. An ALJ, then the Commission by a 2-1 vote on
application for review, awarded Odom PTD benefits plus past
and future medical expenses.
appeals, charging that no sufficient competent evidence
warranted the PTD, past medical, or future medical awards
(RSMo § 287.495.1(4)).
1 - PTD Benefits
alleges that no sufficient evidence supports the PTD award.
We can overlook the Rule 84.04(d) violation, but not the
supporting argument's failings.
84.04(e) requires an argument to support all factual
assertions with "specific page references" to the
record on appeal. Point 1's argument, replete with
factual assertions, has no such cites. We would have to do
CES's work to know if the record supports its arguments.
Lombardo v. Lombardo, 120 S.W.3d 232, 247 (Mo.App.
2003). We cannot sift 2, 200 pages for that purpose or to
remedy CES's violation without becoming a de
facto advocate, which we cannot do. Eder v.
Lawson's Hardwood Floors, 403 S.W.3d 623, 625
with record references, Point 1 would still fail. A
successful not-supported-by-substantial-evidence ...