SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc JAMES ECKARDT, ) Opinion issued April 29, 2025 ) Appellant/Cross-Respondent, ) ) v. ) No. SC100784 ) TREASURER OF MISSOURI AS ) CUSTODIAN OF THE SECOND ) INJURY FUND, ) ) Respondent/Cross-Appellant. )
APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
James Eckardt appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations
Commission (the Commission) denying permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. Eckardt
argues the Commission misconstrued the evidence by finding his expert relied on a non-
qualifying right shoulder injury in determining he was permanently and totally disabled.
He alternatively argues a load factor should have been applied to his right shoulder injury
and, when such load factor is applied, the injury qualifies under section 287.220.3(2)(a)a. 1
The Court affirms the Commission’s denial of PTD benefits.
1 All statutory references are to RSMo 2016 unless otherwise noted. Factual and Procedural Background
Eckardt began working as an aircraft mechanic in 1976. His work duties included
changing equipment parts, large engines, and brakes, which entailed frequent walking,
standing, climbing, and crawling, both indoors and outdoors. His job required excellent
manual dexterity. Eckardt used assorted tools in tight and awkward spaces and lifted
objects up to 100 pounds. Throughout the course of his employment, spanning more than
40 years, he sustained seven work-related injuries.
Eckardt’s first injury was in March 1998, when he stepped in a hole near an airplane
gate and injured his right knee. This incident resulted in two knee surgeries, physical
therapy, and, eventually, a right knee replacement in 2014. Eckardt returned to work after
the injury but found it hard to kneel and walk on his right knee.
In September 2001, Eckardt sustained a second work-related injury when he fell
from a ladder and injured his left knee. This incident resulted in knee surgery and physical
therapy. In 2014, Eckardt underwent a left knee replacement. Again, he returned to work,
but the physical demands of his job (i.e., going up and down jetway stairs, walking from
gate to gate, and working while kneeling on the ground to change brakes and tires)
exacerbated his left knee problems.
Eckardt’s third work-related injury occurred in January 2010, when he slipped on
ice and fell on his left arm, causing tears in his left shoulder and bicep and a fracture to his
left wrist. Eckardt underwent surgeries on the left wrist and shoulder in February 2010 but
experienced post-surgery complications and persistent pain in the left shoulder. He had a
second left shoulder surgery in January 2011 but continued to have pain, weakness, and
2 numbness in his left shoulder and wrist. Eckardt went back to work, though his left
shoulder condition made it more difficult to use tools and pick up objects at work.
In November 2012, Eckardt incurred another work-related injury when he
misjudged a step while exiting an airplane. He caught the door handle to maintain his
balance, injuring his right shoulder. Eckardt was diagnosed with a right shoulder
impingement and was referred to physical therapy. He returned to work despite it being
more difficult to lift objects due to the loss of some range of motion in his right shoulder.
In January 2013, Eckardt was diagnosed with work-related carpal tunnel syndrome
in the left and right wrists. He had surgery on the right wrist in February 2013 and the left
wrist in March 2013. Eckardt continued to work despite having “no feeling” in his hands
and frequently dropping items as a result.
Eckardt sustained his final work-related injury, which this Court refers to as the
primary injury, 2 in October 2015. He was struck by an open door of a moving van,
resulting in injury to his cervical spine, right shoulder, and right wrist. Eckardt underwent
a spinal fusion surgery in July 2016 and reached maximum medical improvement of the
primary injury in January 2017. Eckardt retired in February 2017 because he could no
longer physically perform his job.
Eckardt sought disability benefits from the Treasurer of the State of Missouri as
Custodian of the Second Injury Fund (the Fund). The administrative law judge (ALJ) in
2 The final “subsequent compensable work-related injury” referred to in section 287.220.3(2)(a)b “is often referred to as the ‘primary injury.’” Treasurer of Mo. v. Parker, 622 S.W.3d 178, 181 (Mo. banc 2021).
3 the Division of Workers’ Compensation assigned the following permanent partial disability
(PPD) amounts to Eckardt’s preexisting work injuries and diseases:
(1) Right knee – 80 weeks PPD
(2) Left knee – 80 weeks PPD
(3) Left shoulder – 92.8 weeks PPD
(4) Left wrist – 78.75 weeks PPD (due to injury and carpal tunnel syndrome)
(5) Right wrist – 70 weeks PPD (due to only carpal tunnel syndrome)
(6) Right shoulder – 46.4 weeks PPD
The ALJ considered three medical reports from a doctor who had examined Eckardt
in 2011, 2014, and 2018, respectively. Relevant here, the 2018 report stated Eckardt was
permanently and totally disabled due to his primary injury in combination with all six of
his preexisting disabilities. The ALJ acknowledged the right shoulder injury did not reach
the statutory threshold of 50 weeks PPD to be considered in the PTD benefits determination
but found the doctor’s reliance on that injury “not significant when considering all of
[Eckardt’s] qualifying preexisting injuries.” The ALJ then determined Eckardt was
permanently and totally disabled and found the Fund liable for PTD benefits.
The Fund appealed to the Commission. The Fund argued the ALJ erred in
considering the carpal tunnel syndrome in Eckardt’s left and right wrists, as occupational
diseases such as carpal tunnel syndrome do not qualify as preexisting injuries under
category (ii). The Fund further argued the ALJ erred in awarding PTD benefits because
the doctor improperly relied on Eckardt’s non-qualifying right shoulder injury and carpal
tunnel syndrome in his medical causation analysis.
4 The Commission reversed the ALJ’s award and denied Eckardt’s claim, finding he
failed to meet his burden to show he was entitled to PTD benefits. The Commission held
the doctor improperly relied on Eckardt’s non-qualifying right shoulder injury in his
medical causation analysis, which constituted the only medical causation evidence in
Eckardt’s case. Accordingly, there was “no credible or persuasive evidence in the record
that [Eckardt] is [permanently and totally disabled] due to the primary injury in
combination with only preexisting injuries that qualify under [section] 287.220.3.” The
Commission further held occupational diseases qualify as preexisting injuries under
category (ii) such that Eckardt’s carpal tunnel syndrome was appropriately considered in
the PTD benefits analysis.
Eckardt appeals, arguing the Commission misconstrued the evidence by finding the
doctor relied on the non-qualifying right shoulder injury in his PTD determination. Eckardt
alternatively argues a load factor should apply to enhance the amount of PPD attributed to
his right shoulder injury, pushing it over the 50-week statutory threshold to qualify for
consideration. 3 The Court addresses these arguments in reverse order.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc JAMES ECKARDT, ) Opinion issued April 29, 2025 ) Appellant/Cross-Respondent, ) ) v. ) No. SC100784 ) TREASURER OF MISSOURI AS ) CUSTODIAN OF THE SECOND ) INJURY FUND, ) ) Respondent/Cross-Appellant. )
APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
James Eckardt appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations
Commission (the Commission) denying permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. Eckardt
argues the Commission misconstrued the evidence by finding his expert relied on a non-
qualifying right shoulder injury in determining he was permanently and totally disabled.
He alternatively argues a load factor should have been applied to his right shoulder injury
and, when such load factor is applied, the injury qualifies under section 287.220.3(2)(a)a. 1
The Court affirms the Commission’s denial of PTD benefits.
1 All statutory references are to RSMo 2016 unless otherwise noted. Factual and Procedural Background
Eckardt began working as an aircraft mechanic in 1976. His work duties included
changing equipment parts, large engines, and brakes, which entailed frequent walking,
standing, climbing, and crawling, both indoors and outdoors. His job required excellent
manual dexterity. Eckardt used assorted tools in tight and awkward spaces and lifted
objects up to 100 pounds. Throughout the course of his employment, spanning more than
40 years, he sustained seven work-related injuries.
Eckardt’s first injury was in March 1998, when he stepped in a hole near an airplane
gate and injured his right knee. This incident resulted in two knee surgeries, physical
therapy, and, eventually, a right knee replacement in 2014. Eckardt returned to work after
the injury but found it hard to kneel and walk on his right knee.
In September 2001, Eckardt sustained a second work-related injury when he fell
from a ladder and injured his left knee. This incident resulted in knee surgery and physical
therapy. In 2014, Eckardt underwent a left knee replacement. Again, he returned to work,
but the physical demands of his job (i.e., going up and down jetway stairs, walking from
gate to gate, and working while kneeling on the ground to change brakes and tires)
exacerbated his left knee problems.
Eckardt’s third work-related injury occurred in January 2010, when he slipped on
ice and fell on his left arm, causing tears in his left shoulder and bicep and a fracture to his
left wrist. Eckardt underwent surgeries on the left wrist and shoulder in February 2010 but
experienced post-surgery complications and persistent pain in the left shoulder. He had a
second left shoulder surgery in January 2011 but continued to have pain, weakness, and
2 numbness in his left shoulder and wrist. Eckardt went back to work, though his left
shoulder condition made it more difficult to use tools and pick up objects at work.
In November 2012, Eckardt incurred another work-related injury when he
misjudged a step while exiting an airplane. He caught the door handle to maintain his
balance, injuring his right shoulder. Eckardt was diagnosed with a right shoulder
impingement and was referred to physical therapy. He returned to work despite it being
more difficult to lift objects due to the loss of some range of motion in his right shoulder.
In January 2013, Eckardt was diagnosed with work-related carpal tunnel syndrome
in the left and right wrists. He had surgery on the right wrist in February 2013 and the left
wrist in March 2013. Eckardt continued to work despite having “no feeling” in his hands
and frequently dropping items as a result.
Eckardt sustained his final work-related injury, which this Court refers to as the
primary injury, 2 in October 2015. He was struck by an open door of a moving van,
resulting in injury to his cervical spine, right shoulder, and right wrist. Eckardt underwent
a spinal fusion surgery in July 2016 and reached maximum medical improvement of the
primary injury in January 2017. Eckardt retired in February 2017 because he could no
longer physically perform his job.
Eckardt sought disability benefits from the Treasurer of the State of Missouri as
Custodian of the Second Injury Fund (the Fund). The administrative law judge (ALJ) in
2 The final “subsequent compensable work-related injury” referred to in section 287.220.3(2)(a)b “is often referred to as the ‘primary injury.’” Treasurer of Mo. v. Parker, 622 S.W.3d 178, 181 (Mo. banc 2021).
3 the Division of Workers’ Compensation assigned the following permanent partial disability
(PPD) amounts to Eckardt’s preexisting work injuries and diseases:
(1) Right knee – 80 weeks PPD
(2) Left knee – 80 weeks PPD
(3) Left shoulder – 92.8 weeks PPD
(4) Left wrist – 78.75 weeks PPD (due to injury and carpal tunnel syndrome)
(5) Right wrist – 70 weeks PPD (due to only carpal tunnel syndrome)
(6) Right shoulder – 46.4 weeks PPD
The ALJ considered three medical reports from a doctor who had examined Eckardt
in 2011, 2014, and 2018, respectively. Relevant here, the 2018 report stated Eckardt was
permanently and totally disabled due to his primary injury in combination with all six of
his preexisting disabilities. The ALJ acknowledged the right shoulder injury did not reach
the statutory threshold of 50 weeks PPD to be considered in the PTD benefits determination
but found the doctor’s reliance on that injury “not significant when considering all of
[Eckardt’s] qualifying preexisting injuries.” The ALJ then determined Eckardt was
permanently and totally disabled and found the Fund liable for PTD benefits.
The Fund appealed to the Commission. The Fund argued the ALJ erred in
considering the carpal tunnel syndrome in Eckardt’s left and right wrists, as occupational
diseases such as carpal tunnel syndrome do not qualify as preexisting injuries under
category (ii). The Fund further argued the ALJ erred in awarding PTD benefits because
the doctor improperly relied on Eckardt’s non-qualifying right shoulder injury and carpal
tunnel syndrome in his medical causation analysis.
4 The Commission reversed the ALJ’s award and denied Eckardt’s claim, finding he
failed to meet his burden to show he was entitled to PTD benefits. The Commission held
the doctor improperly relied on Eckardt’s non-qualifying right shoulder injury in his
medical causation analysis, which constituted the only medical causation evidence in
Eckardt’s case. Accordingly, there was “no credible or persuasive evidence in the record
that [Eckardt] is [permanently and totally disabled] due to the primary injury in
combination with only preexisting injuries that qualify under [section] 287.220.3.” The
Commission further held occupational diseases qualify as preexisting injuries under
category (ii) such that Eckardt’s carpal tunnel syndrome was appropriately considered in
the PTD benefits analysis.
Eckardt appeals, arguing the Commission misconstrued the evidence by finding the
doctor relied on the non-qualifying right shoulder injury in his PTD determination. Eckardt
alternatively argues a load factor should apply to enhance the amount of PPD attributed to
his right shoulder injury, pushing it over the 50-week statutory threshold to qualify for
consideration. 3 The Court addresses these arguments in reverse order.
3 The Fund also asserts a cross-appeal alleging the Commission erred in determining occupational diseases qualify as preexisting injuries under category (ii) and that Eckardt’s carpal tunnel syndrome was appropriately considered in his PTD benefits analysis. The Court need not reach this issue to resolve this appeal. Because there was no evidence that Eckardt was permanently and totally disabled absent consideration of the nonqualifying right shoulder injury, the Court affirms the Commission’s denial of PTD benefits without the necessity of reaching the issue raised in the Fund’s cross-appeal.
5 Standard of Review
“This Court reviews the Commission’s findings to determine if they are supported
by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record, but … questions of law are
reviewed de novo.” Parker, 622 S.W.3d at 180-81 (quotations omitted). The appellate
court “shall review only questions of law and may modify, reverse, remand for rehearing,
or set aside the award” only upon the following grounds:
(1) That the commission acted without or in excess of its powers;
(2) That the award was procured by fraud;
(3) That the facts found by the commission do not support the award;
(4) That there was not sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the award.
§ 287.495.1(1)-(4). Further, this Court must strictly construe the provisions of the workers’
compensation statutes. § 287.800.1.
Analysis
The claimant bears the burden of showing he is entitled to PTD benefits. Annayeva
v. SAB of TSD of City of St. Louis, 597 S.W.3d 196, 199 (Mo. banc 2020). Pursuant to
section 287.220.3, a claimant “must meet two conditions to make a compensable PTD
claim against the Fund.” Klecka v. Treasurer of Mo., 644 S.W.3d 562, 566 (Mo. banc
2022).
First, the claimant must have at least one qualifying preexisting disability, which
must be medically documented, equal at least 50 weeks of PPD, and fall into one of the
four listed categories in section 287.220.3(2)(a)a. Id. Of those four categories, the parties
6 do not dispute category (ii) applies here. Category (ii) requires the preexisting disability
to be a “direct result of a compensable injury as defined in section 287.020[.]”
§ 287.220.3(2)(a)a(ii).
Second, the claimant must show he “thereafter sustains a subsequent compensable
work-related injury [the primary injury] that, when combined with the preexisting
disability … results in a [PTD.]” § 287.220.3(2)(a)b. To satisfy the second condition, the
claimant must show “the primary injury results in PTD when combined with all preexisting
disabilities that qualify” under the first condition. Parker, 622 S.W.3d at 182 (first
emphasis omitted).
The Court first determines whether Eckardt’s right shoulder injury and bilateral
carpal tunnel syndrome qualify as preexisting disabilities under the first step above. The
Court then addresses whether Eckardt satisfied the second condition by showing he is
permanently and totally disabled due to the combination of his primary injury and only
those preexisting disabilities that qualify.
Eckardt’s Right Shoulder Injury Does Not Qualify as a Preexisting Disability Because It Equals Fewer Than 50 Weeks PPD and a Load Factor Does Not Apply
Eckardt argues the Commission should have applied a load or multiplicity factor to
enhance the amount of PPD attributed to his non-qualifying right shoulder injury due to
the “synergistic effects” of his injuries. When such load factor is applied, Eckardt argues
the amount of PPD attributed to that injury, which the Commission determined equaled
46.4 weeks of PPD, rises above the 50-week threshold such that it can be considered in his
PTD determination. This Court disagrees.
7 The “synergistic effect” or “load factor” analysis to which Eckardt refers historically
came into effect only when a claimant sought PPD benefits under the pre-2013 version of
the workers’ compensation statutes. Glasco v. Treasurer of Mo., 534 S.W.3d 391, 399
(Mo. App. 2017). Prior to the amendments, the Fund was liable for PPD benefits only
when an employee satisfied three elements: (1) the employee sustained a compensable
work-related injury resulting in PPD, (2) the employee had a preexisting disability that was
of such seriousness to constitute a hindrance or obstacle to employment or reemployment,
and (3) the work injury and the preexisting disability combined “to cause a greater degree
of disability than the simple sum of the disabilities viewed independently.” Winingear v.
Treasurer of Mo., 474 S.W.3d 203, 207 (Mo. App. 2015). The Fund was liable only for
the “greater degree of disability” found in the third element, which was referred to as the
synergistic effect, load factor, or multiplicity factor. See Pierson v. Treasurer of Mo., 126
S.W.3d 386, 389 (Mo. banc 2004) (noting “the fund is liable in the amount of the increase
in disability caused by the synergistic effect of the two injuries” found in the first and
second elements). Even under the pre-2013 framework for PPD claims, the number of
weeks constituting the synergistic effect for which the Fund was liable could not be broken
down to correspond to individual preexisting injuries as Eckardt argues – it could be found
only due to the combination of the primary and preexisting injuries.
Regardless, effective January 1, 2014, the legislature eliminated claims for PPD and,
in so doing, also eliminated the attendant load factor analysis. § 287.220.3(2); Parker, 622
S.W.3d at 181. Under the current statutory framework, Eckardt is entitled to PTD benefits
from the Fund only if he can establish two things: (1) he has a “medically documented
8 preexisting disability equaling a minimum of fifty weeks of [PPD] compensation” that is
“a direct result of a compensable injury as defined in section 287.020[,]” and (2) he
“sustains a subsequent compensable work-related injury that, when combined with the
preexisting disability … results in a [PTD].” § 287.220.3(2)(a)a-b. Nothing in this
statutory framework, which this Court is bound to strictly construe, permits or even
suggests a load factor may be applied to increase the amount of PPD attributed to a
preexisting disability. The Court, therefore, rejects Eckardt’s argument that a load factor
should apply to his preexisting right shoulder injury. 4 Absent a load factor, the right
shoulder injury does not reach the 50-week threshold and cannot be considered in
combination with Eckardt’s primary injury to determine if he is entitled to PTD benefits.
Eckardt Failed to Show He Is Entitled to PTD Benefits Due to the Combination of His Primary Injury and Only His Qualifying Preexisting Disabilities
Having established Eckardt’s right shoulder injury does not qualify, the Court next
determines whether Eckardt established that his primary injury rendered him permanently
and totally disabled when combined with only those preexisting disabilities that qualify for
consideration. Parker, 622 S.W.3d at 182. This Court concludes he did not.
4 The court of appeals has recently split about whether a prior award of enhanced PPD may be applied to an otherwise non-qualifying injury to determine whether such injury meets the 50-week threshold. Compare Ryan v. Second Injury Fund, No. ED112149, __ S.W.3d __ (Mo. App. E.D. Nov. 26, 2024) (affirming the use of enhanced PPD in a PTD determination), with Walton v. Treasurer of Mo., No. SD38504, __ S.W.3d __ (Mo. App. S.D. Mar. 20, 2025) (holding section 287.220.3 does not permit the use of a prior enhanced PPD award to add additional weeks of compensation to an otherwise non-qualifying injury in a PTD determination). This Court agrees with the Southern District’s reasoning in Walton – as explained above, enhanced PPD should not be used in a PTD determination. Ryan and similar cases should no longer be followed on these grounds.
9 The doctor provided the only medical causation evidence in Eckardt’s case and
relied on all of Eckardt’s preexisting injuries, including his non-qualifying right shoulder
injury, in concluding Eckardt is permanently and totally disabled. In his most recent report,
the doctor opined:
When [Eckardt] had the addition of his neck injury, the combined symptoms related to his bilateral knees, the mechanical dysfunction of his bilateral shoulders, and the neuropathic dysfunction of his carpal tunnel symptoms combined with the mechanical and neuropathic problems emanating from his neck injury causing him to reach a tipping point where it was basically impossible for him to perform his job duties. The interplay between his injuries, made it more difficult to function efficiently at work and home.
(Emphasis added). Only one sentence later, the doctor provided his ultimate conclusion
that Eckardt is permanently and totally disabled “as a direct result of the [primary injury]
in combination with his preexisting medical conditions.” It is clear the “preexisting
medical conditions” to which the doctor referred included the bilateral shoulder issues he
mentioned only a few sentences prior.
Eckardt argues the doctor merely concluded the primary injury, in combination with
any subset of preexisting injuries, rendered Eckardt permanently and totally disabled. In
other words, Eckardt asserts he established that any one of his preexisting injuries, when
combined with his primary injury, renders him permanently and totally disabled. But that
was not the doctor’s opinion, as demonstratedabove. Moreover, Eckardt misconstrues his
burden. He was required to establish the primary injury results in PTD when combined
with only preexisting disabilities that qualify. Parker, 622 S.W.3d at 182. In other words,
he was required to prove the combination of his primary injury and his qualifying
10 preexisting disabilities, absent non-qualifying disabilities, resulted in PTD. Klecka, 644
S.W.3d at 567.
Nothing in the record shows the doctor found Eckardt would still be permanently
and totally disabled absent his non-qualifying right shoulder injury. To the contrary, the
record shows the doctor considered all of Eckardt’s preexisting injuries, irrespective of
whether they qualify, to determine a PTD resulted. This was improper and insufficient to
establish Fund liability. See Parker, 622 S.W.3d at 182 (“The existence of non-qualifying
disabilities does not count against (or for) the claimant in evaluating whether he meets the
second threshold condition.” (emphasis added)).
Eckardt relies on Obermann v. Treasurer of Missouri, 681 S.W.3d 559 (Mo. App.
2023), but that case is distinguishable. There, the Commission reversed the ALJ’s award
of PTD benefits because the claimant’s two experts (a medical doctor and a vocational
expert) considered his non-qualifying injury in their general review of his case. Id. at 561-
62. Because of this, the Commission held there was no evidence in the record that the
claimant was permanently and totally disabled due to the combination of his primary injury
with only qualifying preexisting injuries. Id. The court of appeals reversed the
Commission’s decision and explained “nothing prohibits a claimant’s medical and
vocational experts from considering non-qualifying disabilities in connection with their
comprehensive review of a claimant’s injury and disability history.” Id. at 565. Honoring
Parker, the court of appeals clarified “[w]hat they may not do is include non-qualifying
disabilities in their causation opinion.” Id. at 565 (emphasis added). Because there was
repeated testimony from Obermann’s vocational expert that Obermann was permanently
11 and totally disabled irrespective of his non-qualifying disability, the “ultimate causation
conclusion that Obermann was PTD did not rely” on his non-qualifying injury. Id. at 562-
65. That is simply not the case here - there was no medical causation evidence that Eckardt
was permanently and totally disabled absent his non-qualifying injury. 5
Eckardt urges this Court to conclude he is entitled to PTD benefits because logic
dictates that an aircraft mechanic with a debilitating neck injury and any one of his
preexisting injuries is permanently and totally disabled. But whether Eckardt is
permanently and totally disabled and whether he is entitled to PTD benefits from the Fund
are “entirely distinct questions.” Klecka, 644 S.W.3d at 567. To be entitled to PTD
benefits, Eckardt was required to specifically show the combination of his primary injury
and his qualifying preexisting injuries, absent non-qualifying injuries, resulted in PTD. As
was true in Klecka, “[t]here was no evidence [Eckardt]’s primary injury, combined with
his qualifying preexisting disabilit[ies], resulted in PTD because he failed to elicit
testimony from [his only] expert[] indicating he would still be rendered permanently and
totally disabled, absent his non-qualifying injur[y].” Id. Accordingly, Eckardt did not meet
his burden in establishing Fund liability, and his claim for PTD benefits was properly
denied.
5 Eckardt also relies on Lynch v. Treasurer of Missouri, 635 S.W.3d 573 (Mo. App. 2021), and Hazeltine v. Second Injury Fund, 591 S.W.3d 45 (Mo. App. 2019), to argue the Commission’s decision is not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Eckardt asserts the Commission improperly disregarded the doctor’s testimony that Eckardt is permanently and totally disabled and made no finding that the testimony was not credible. But the Commission did not disregard that testimony – rather, the Commission found the doctor’s opinion did not legally establish Fund liability. As such, Lynch and Hazeltine do not apply.
12 Conclusion
For the above reasons, the Commission’s denial of PTD benefits is affirmed.
___________________________________ ROBIN RANSOM, JUDGE
All concur.