Simon Anderson Law P.C.

701 Market Street, Suite 340, St. Louis, MO  63101

314-621-2828

MISSOURI WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CASE LAW UPDATE

April 2026 – June 2026

Claim Denied as Claimant’s Fall While Cleaning Coffee Off Shoe Using Sink Counter Not in Course and Scope of Employment

Markovic v. Watlow Electric Manufacturing, Injury No. 22-023333

FACTS: Before a meeting, the Claimant went to the breakfast area to get coffee and spilled coffee on her shoe. She believed this was problematic due to the strong smell of coffee and would be disrespectful to others, which made her uncomfortable. Therefore, she went to the bathroom and attempted to clean the top portion of her shoe and while doing so, she brought her foot up to the sink counter, lost her balance, and fell, striking her left shoulder on the floor. She was taken to Mercy South and Dr. Fisher performed an ORIF of the distal radius and then a carpal tunnel release. The employer denied the case, alleging the injury did not arise out of and in the course and scope of the employment, and the Judge agreed, finding that falling while placing a foot on a vanity to clean a coffee-stained shoe was unrelated to employment and equally present in non-employment life, making the injury non-compensable. The Judge compared it to Johme, where the claimant fell in an office kitchen after making a cup of coffee. In that instance, the claimant was injured while turning and twisting her ankle. In that case, the Court held that she was equally exposed to the cause of her injury turning and twisting her ankle or falling off her shoe while in her workplace making coffee than she would have been when she was outside of her workplace in her normal non-employment life.

The Judge went on to note that there was no evidence to refute the proposition that the claimant could encounter a spill, odor, or dim lighting at home or in a public restroom and chose to clean a shoe in a similar manner, facing the same risk of losing her balance.

The Judge went on to note that the claimant’s act of placing her foot on a bathroom vanity to clean her shoe after spilling coffee on it is a risk which she was equally exposed to in her normal non-employment life and therefore the injury was not compensable. The claimant appealed and the Commission confirmed. 

Claimant Entitled to TTD as Termination Due to Violation of Attendance Policy Not Misconduct

Salazar v. Unilever USA, Injury Number 24-097376

FACTS: The claimant sustained an injury to his right ankle on December 13, 2024. The claimant did have preexisting diabetes and obtained a note from his doctor recommending that the claimant be given one to three days off at a time to allow him rest, which he presented to the Employer and he was given an accommodation of allowing one to three days a month as excused absences. The claimant testified that the employer took away his accommodation on February 13, 2025 and did not tell him why, but the HR manager testified that he had exceeded his allotted days off in January. The HR manager testified that on February 3, 2025, she received a new accommodation form from the claimant’s doctor, who recommended three days or more of leave per month if needed and after review, the employer’s legal team determined that this accommodation was no longer reasonable because the prior accommodation had been abused and the current accommodation was too vague. The employer provided a new accommodation allowing for breaks and the claimant accepted the same.

The claimant’s supervisor testified that he had not heard from the claimant about his injury since three days after the injury until March 4, 2025. The injury was reported to the insurance company and treatment was authorized with Dr. Kuhlmann. The doctor’s restrictions were accommodated and the claimant was offered an office job, but he noted the light duty work seemed petty and was retaliatory and he insisted he was not trained for office work. The claimant also alleged his medication made him unable to drive and the employer provided transportation. The claimant was terminated on March 27, 2025 after he incurred ten points in violation of the attendance policy. His supervisor testified extensively about his disciplinary issues and process for termination. He was ultimately terminated for attendance problems, but he had other disciplinary write-ups for conduct or behavior issues. The claimant’s attorney obtained a report of Dr. Zimmerman, who believed the claimant needed additional treatment. Dr. Patel testified on the employer’s behalf and he did not believe the claimant needed any additional treatment and placed him at MMI. At the Hardship Hearing the claimant demanded back pay for wrongful termination, referral to a specialist and TTD benefits until he is released from treatment.

The Judge determined that the claimant was not entitled to additional treatment, as she found Dr. Patel’s opinion more persuasive. The employer alleged that the claimant was terminated for post-injury misconduct and the Judge did not agree. The Judge noted that the termination letter provided to the claimant outlined ten attendance points the claimant accrued; seven of those were related to attendance violations prior to the date of injury and noted that the one unexcused absence after his work injury did not equate to post-injury misconduct. The Judge did believe the claimant was entitled to TTD, from the date he was terminated through the date he was placed at MMI. The Judge also assessed 5% PPD.

The claimant appealed, alleging that the Hardship Hearing was to obtain TTD and medical treatment and did not put PPD as an issue. It was noted on the record at the Hearing that the employer was requesting a Final Award in the event that the Judge did not believe the claimant was entitled to additional medical treatment and therefore PPD was an issue. However, the Commission noted the ALJ lacked authority to resolve the issue of PPD because that issue was not raised in the employee’s Application for Hardship Hearing and the employee’s attorney did not agree to PPD as a disputed issue at the Gearing. The Commission vacated the ALJ’s findings on the issue of PPD and remanded the case to the Division to allow both the claimant and the employer to produce evidence on all issues in dispute and to issue a Final Award.

LDC (Line of Duty Compensation) Claim Not Timely Filed

Williams v. City of Kansas City, Missouri Fire Department, Case No. WD88291 (Mo. App. 2026)

FACTS: The employee, who is deceased, served as a firefighter for 38 years. Due to his exposure to carcinogens, he developed metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma and multiple myeloma. He passed away on February 23, 2018. The employee’s widow, herein “claimant”, filed her LDC claim on September 25, 2023. The LDC benefit provides a cash benefit to certain public safety officers including firefighters who are killed in the line of duty. The Division denied the claim as it was not timely filed as per the statute it has to be filed within one year from the date of death. The claimant appealed and requested a hearing before an ALJ and the ALJ confirmed the denial. The claimant appealed to the Commission, who affirmed the decision of the ALJ.

The claimant had also filed a workers’ compensation claim and the case went to a hearing and the ALJ issued an Award of Benefits. It was after receiving the workers’ compensation Award that the claimant filed the LDC claim. The claimant appealed the Commission’s denial.

HOLDING: The Claimant essentially argued that the time limit to file an LDC claim is somehow on hold until the work comp case is resolved, and the Court was not persuaded. The Court determined that the LDC and workers’ compensation claims are two separate proceedings and two separate matters. Therefore, the LDC claim was not timely filed and the Commission’s decision was affirmed.

LINCOLN, Neb. - Access to some information on wokers' compensation injury reports for certain parties will change due to confidentiality requirements that become effective July 18, 2026.

Legislative Bill 455 revises NEB. REV. STAT.§ 48-144.01, which requires confidentiality for certain information in an employee's injury report, known as the First Report of Alleged Occupational Injury or Illness (FRO/). Except as provided in § 48-144.01(2), the employee's name, address, phone number, and email address are confidential for 60 days from the report submission date unless the employee waives confidentiality.

The Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court has developed forms to verify whether requests for injury report information have been mae new confidentiality requirements.

For more information about workers' compensation in Nebraska, refer to the court's website

{https://www.newcc.gov/) or call our Information Line at 402-471-6468 or 800-599-5155.

On June 12, 2026, Governor Patrick Morrissey appointed Erin Hunter to serve as the new Insurance Commissioner to lead the West Virginia Offices of the Insurance Commissioner, effective July 1, 2026. She will succeed Commissioner Allan L. McVey who is retiring June 30, after he served as Commissioner for a combined total of over 8 years across two separate tenures. 

"Erin Hunter has spent more than a decade serving West Virginians through the Offices of the Insurance Commissioner and has earned a reputation as a knowledgeable and effective leader," said Governor Morrisey. "I am confident she will build on the agency's strong foundation, and I thank Allan McVey for his years of dedicated service to the people of West Virginia."

Hunter served as Deputy Insurance Commissioner from April 29, 2019, until December 2025, when she entered private industry. She also served as General Counsel for the West Virginia Offices of the Insurance Commissioner from March 31, 2018. From January 25, 2019 through March 3, 2019, she also served in the role of Acting Insurance Commissioner.

Hunter was initially hired into the Insurance Commissioner’s Regulatory Compliance and Enforcement Division in 2012 as an associate attorney. In that role, she handled insurance-related investigations and administrative proceedings, including consumer complaints, tax assessment disputes, financial solvency actions, company licensing actions, market conduct actions, and insurance agent/producer licensing actions. As General Counsel, Hunter provided legal advice to the agency and was charged with managing all legal issues affecting the agency, including general regulatory policy, outside litigation, administrative actions, public inquiries and outreach, state-administered workers’ compensation fund claims, workers’ compensation employer compliance and enforcement, legislative developments and rules implementation, staffing for various boards and councils, Freedom of Information Act inquiries, and other agency personnel, administrative and contractual issues.

Hunter attended West Virginia University where she graduated with Bachelor of Arts degrees in English Literature and Political Science. She received her Juris Doctorate degree from West Virginia University College of Law. Hunter obtained her designation as a Professional, Academy of Healthcare Management (PAHM) through America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and received a certificate in Insurance Regulation through The Institutes.

Dill Battle

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC

hdbattle@spilmanlaw.com

304-340-3823

            James K. MacAlister

From Cohen, Snyder, Eisenberg, & Katzenberg, P.A., where he focused on Claimant Workers’ Compensation claims. A graduate from the University of Baltimore School of Law, Mr. MacAlister has been practicing since 1984. Mr. MacAlister is also admitted to practice in Federal Courts and has handled appeals in all of Maryland’s Appellate Courts, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Notably, Mr. MacAlister has published numerous Articles in the Maryland Association for Justice dealing with workers’ Compensation issues. Mr. MacAlister has also previously received the Robert Zarbin Maryland Association for Justice Award for Outstanding Legislative Work Trial Lawyer of the Year – Maryland Association for Justice Leadership in the Law.

            Stephane Romano

From Antezana & Antezana, LLC, where she focuses on Claimant Workers’ Compensation claims. A 2015 graduate from the University of Maryland School of Law, Ms. Romano is admitted to practice in both Maryland and Virginia. Ms. Romano is a member of the Hispanic National Bar Association and Maryland State Bar Association. She is also fluent in Spanish and Portuguese and has served the community as an intern and volunteer for Catholic Charities helping immigrants with their DACA, TPS, and Applications for Naturalization. Ms. Romano was selected to Super Lawyers Rising Stars list from 2019 – 2020, and 2022 – 2025.

Kenrick Roberts

A proud resident of Prince George’s County and originally from St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, Commissioner Roberts brings a wealth of experience and dedication to serving Maryland’s workforce.

Before joining the Commission, he spent nearly a decade at Berman, Sobin, Gross, LLP, advocating for injured workers before the Commission and in Maryland’s appellate courts. His impressive career includes service as a judicial law clerk in Wicomico County, work in higher education, and recognition as a Rising Star by Super Lawyers since 2020. He has also earned distinctions such as National Black Lawyers Top 40 Under 40 and Top Attorneys in America.

Commissioner Roberts holds a Juris Doctor (cum laude) from UDC’s David A. Clarke School of Law, a Master of Science from Nova Southeastern University, and a Bachelor of Arts from Saint Leo University.

            AWW Cap

            $1,537.00 (up from $1,493.00)

PPD Rates

            <75wks.

                        $257.00 (up from $250.00)

75-249wks.

$513.00 (up from $498.00)

                        >250wks.

                                    $1,153.00 (up from $1,120.00)

            TPD Rate

                        $769.00 (up from $747.00)

Mileage Reimbursement Rate

                        72.5¢ per mile (up from 70¢)

            COLA Increase

                        Increase of 2.95% (down from 2025’s 3.11% increase)

Report on Workers’ Compensation Insurance

2025 Maryland Laws Ch. 308 (S.B. 830): alters the entities to which and the information of which a claimant is required to authorize the release in a claim application filed with the Workers' Compensation Commission.

2025 Maryland Laws Ch. 198 (H.B. 15 / S.B. 144): authorizes the formation of limited worker cooperative associations; and establishes rules and procedures for the formation, governance, conversion, and dissolution of limited worker cooperative associations. A provision under the law, which the Insurance Commissioner is charged with enforcing, requires an insurer that provides workers’ compensation insurance to members of a limited worker cooperative association to calculate premiums for members who are covered employees: (1) in accordance with Title 11, Subtitle 3 and Title 19, Subtitle 4 of the Insurance Article; and (2) based on the covered employee’s actual payroll value.

Both found here.

The Maryland Legislature 2025 Session Yields Four Pieces of Legislation That Will Impact Employers/Insurers in the State

HB193/SB219 [went] into effect on July 1, 2025 and amends Md. Code Ann., Lab & Empl., § 9-1007 by increasing the assessment on Awards against Employers/Insurers by up to an additional 1.5% if the Board determines that the reserves of the Fund are inadequate. The bill also requires the Workers’ Compensation Commission to designate a special monitor to assess the financial condition of the Uninsured Employers’ Fund. The bill amends § 9-1011 to increase the amount of the Fund from $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 as the threshold for suspending assessments by the employers and insurers and provides that payment of assessments would be resumed if the amount of the Fund becomes less than $8,000,000 or is expected to become less than $8,000,000 during the next 3 months. If assessments are suspended, the Fund must notify each self-insured employer and insurer to advise when assessments are to be resumed.

Senate Bill 227 [went] into effect on July 1, 2025 and amends Md. Code Ann., Lab & Empl., §9-610.1 by providing the Commission with the authority to allow a credit for benefits previously paid by the Uninsured Employer’s Fund that were also paid by the Employer. The bill also changes § 9-1002 and alters the process by which the Fund is notified by a claim and required to pay compensation. Once enacted, the Commission must provide the Fund with notice of a claim, must send notice to the covered employee or their dependents that any documentation required by the Fund shall be completed, and the uninsured employer must be given notice of the claim before action is taken against them. The Fund will also be required to pay benefits or contest the claim within 21 days of receiving notice of the claim and can implead other employers and insurers to the claim. The bill also establishes requirements for uninsured employers, including depositing security that is sufficient to cover a claim by a covered employee and requires the payment of compensation ordered within 30 days of the date of the award. Lastly, if the Fund pays an award while an appeal is pending, the Fund would remain entitled to full reimbursement from the uninsured employer.

Senate Bill 695 [went] into effect on October 1, 2025, and alters the makeup of the Uninsured Employers’ Fund board. The Board will now consist of:

Two members with substantial experience as officers or employees of a property and casualty insurance company;
One member with substantial experience in the field of accounting or finance;
One member as a policy holder of workers’ compensation insurance in the State; and
One member representing the general public.

Senate Bill 830 [went] into effect on October 1, 2025 and alters Md. Code Ann., Lab & Empl. § 9-709, § 9-710(b), and § 9-711 to include an authorization on the employee’s claim form, including work injury, occupational disease, and death claims for release of medical and financial information, including information related to additional claims filed by the employee and information in the custody of the Commission. This will eliminate the need for parties to issue subpoenas to the Workers’ Compensation Commission to obtain information on prior claims.

 
Readers of The Compendium may recall DWC’s launching two years ago of CompCourses. These free webinars are designed to benefit workers’ compensation professionals, including adjusters, employers, and healthcare staff, by providing essential education on the workers’ compensation system, delivered in free 1-hour webinars. Not only are participants able to stay informed on current trends and improve their professional skills, they are also able to earn free Continuing Education (CE) credits by watching the webinars and completing a short quiz.
 
DWC announced last month that its CompCourses webinars will now be available in an on-demand, self-study format, allowing participants to learn and earn CE credit whenever it fits their schedule by watching previously recorded CompCourses webinars and completing the short quiz to earn 1 hour of TDI self-study CE credit.
 
Earning on-demand credit could not be easier! Simply visit the CompCourses webpage here and select the course you wish to take. You will fill out a Microsoft form, watch the 1-hour webinar on YouTube, and take the quiz to test your knowledge.
 
Voila…..
 
DWC has announced that it will continue to offer live CompCourses in 2026, affording participants the opportunity to engage directly with subject-matter experts and earn CE credit.
 
CompCourses webinars for 2026 are planned as follows:

• Navigating the Top 10 Workers’ Compensation Disputes – Spring 2026.
• Texas Workers’ Compensation Income Benefits 101 – Summer 2026.
• Medical Fee Dispute Resolution – Fall 2026.
• Return to Work – Winter 2026.

Copyright 2026, Stone Loughlin & Swanson, LLP 

DWC is considering amending 28 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 152 concerning attorney fees and sought comments through last month on whether changes to the current hourly rate for attorney fees are necessary.
 
We note that when the Act was implemented in 1991, the approved hourly rate for attorney fees was $150. That rate remained in place for 26 years, until 2017, when it was increased to $200.
 
Per the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator, $200 in January, 2017, has the same buying power as $266.89 in December, 2025. Further, $200 in December, 2025, has the same buying power as did $149.88 in January, 2017. In other words, due to inflation, it’s as if the rate was never increased.

By comparison, the maximum weekly temporary income benefit in 1991 was $428, and the minimum was $64. By 2016, the maximum weekly benefit had risen to $895, and the minimum to $134. Today, the maximum weekly benefit is $1,271, and the minimum is $191. So, benefit levels have nearly tripled since 1991, while the attorney hourly rate has increased only once and remains at $200 nearly a decade later.  Meanwhile, that rate must cover the overhead required to operate and maintain an effective law practice which has increased in ways that were inconceivable in 1991.
 
Workers’ compensation now has the second lowest average hourly rate of any practice area at an average of $180, second only to juvenile law at $146, while the average hourly rate for all practice areas is $367. Hourly Rates in Texas. 
 
The overarching concern is that if the rate cap is not raised, the workers’ compensation bar will continue to shrink, as it is doing now, as older, experienced attorneys retire and new attorneys choose other practice areas over workers’ compensation law because it is more difficult to make the numbers work.  At that point, employees, employers, and carriers will no longer be able to obtain effective legal representation in this highly complex area of the law.

Copyright 2026, Stone Loughlin & Swanson, LLP 

by: Kisa P. Sthankiya

Stephanie Ringbloom, Esq.:

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an unpublished opinion in the case of Yoder v. McCarthy Construction, Inc., et. al., No. 43 EAP 2024, 2025 WL 2981889 (Pa. Oct. 23, 2025). In this decision, the Court confirmed the applicability of the McDonald test for coverage of a subcontractor. The Court noted that “Under the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act), as  interpreted  by  this  Court  for decades, a general contractor that hires a subcontractor to perform work on a jobsite is deemed  an  “employer”  that  is  secondarily  liable  to  the  injured  employee  of  the subcontractor  for  the  payment  of  compensation  under  the  Act, provided  that  the subcontractor—the  one primarily  liable—fails  to  make  payment.” They cited to Section  302(b)  of  the Act, 77 P.S. § 462. A general contractor can thereby avail itself of the same tort immunity afforded to the subcontractor by way of this secondary liability.

There are five elements that must be met under the McDonald test for a general contractor to qualify as a statutory employer: (1) the existence of a contract with an owner or one in the position of an owner; (2) occupancy and/or control of the premises upon which the work is being performed; (3) the existence of a subcontract with the general contractor; (4) entrustment of part of the general contractor’s regular business to the subcontractor; and (5) the claimant is an employee of that subcontractor. The Supreme Court determined that McCarthy Construction had demonstrated all five elements in the claim filed by Yoder, thereby granting it statutory immunity for the civil claim that the injured worker had tried to file against McCarthy.