ROBERT BYERS, Appellant v. NEW PRIME, INC., Respondent

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 24, 2025
• Docket: SD38916
• Status: Published

Opinion

In Division

ROBERT BYERS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) No. SD38916 v. ) ) FILED: September 24, 2025 NEW PRIME, INC., ) ) Respondent. )

APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

AFFIRMED

Like many workers compensation appeals before it, this appeal seeks to challenge

the weight afforded to competing evidence by the Labor and Industrial Relations

Commission (the “Commission”). The evidence in question addressed whether Robert

Byers (“Claimant”), a truck driver, was permanently and totally disabled as a result of the

workplace injury he sustained operating a trailer jack while employed by New Prime, Inc.

(“Employer”). The Commission rejected Claimant’s testimony, expressly finding that

Claimant was “not a credible witness” in light of surveillance video submitted by

Employer showing Claimant engaging in various activities that Claimant testified he

could no longer engage in due to ongoing pain and depression. Furthermore, because Claimant told his medical and vocational experts “that he has the same limitations which

he told the court, which the Commission … found to not be credible,” the Commission

further found those experts’ “opinions regarding the extent of Claimant’s disability to be

unpersuasive.” (Quotations modified.) Instead, the Commission, persuaded by

Employer’s medical expert, found Claimant sustained only permanent partial disability

(“PPD”) rather than the permanent total disability (“PTD”) he was alleging. 1

Claimant appeals the Commission’s PPD award, contending that “there was not

sufficient competent evidence to support that award in that the overwhelming weight of

the evidence proved that he was permanently and totally disabled as a result of his

workplace accident.” (Quotation modified.) As relevant to this contention, “an award that

is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence is, in context, not supported by

competent and substantial evidence.” Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d

220, 223 (Mo. banc 2003) (quotation modified). “‘Substantial’ does not denote quantity

or even quality, but simply means probative evidence.” Dwyer v. Federal Exp. Corp.,

353 S.W.3d 392, 395 (Mo.App. 2011). Such a challenge, therefore, “succeeds only in the

demonstrated absence of sufficient competent substantial evidence; evidence contrary to

the award of the Commission, regardless of quantity or quality, is irrelevant.” Knutter by

Knutter v. American Nat’l Ins., 578 S.W.3d 824, 828 (Mo.App. 2019) (quotation

modified).

1 Specifically, the Commission found that Claimant “has sustained a 10% permanent partial disability to the body-as-a-whole referable to his neck and a 10% permanent partial disability to the body-as-a-whole referable to his low back.” 2 Claimant fails to make the requisite showing. The Commission based its award

upon the opinion of Employer’s medical expert (whom Claimant described as a “physical

medicine and rehabilitation doctor”). That opinion was admitted into evidence without

substantive objection, and Claimant does not allege that said opinion does not amount to

competent substantial evidence supporting the Commission’s PPD award. Claimant

argues only that said opinion did not carry as much weight as the opinions of his medical

and vocational experts because the opinions from those experts were more numerous and

the experts were better qualified (by virtue of having either surgical or vocational

credentials) to evaluate his disability and its impact. Such an argument, “in effect, invites

us to violate our rules of review by substituting our view of witness credibility for that of

the Commission. We cannot and will not do so.” Dwyer, 353 S.W.3d at 395 (quotation

modified). Decisions by the Commission as to competing medical opinions “lie within

the Commission’s sole discretion and are not subject to appellate review.” Id.; see also

Doe Run Co. v. Fenwick, 599 S.W.3d 906, 908 n.3 (Mo.App. 2020) (stating that

“Appellants’ various theories why their experts, not Respondent and his expert, should

have been believed are non-starters when the Commission expressly found Respondent

‘persuasive’ and his expert ‘more credible’ and ‘more persuasive’ than Appellants’

experts.”).

Claimant’s only remaining argument is that “the surveillance videos that the

Commission so greatly relied on do not support its finding of PPD.” (Quotation

modified.) In support, Claimant argues that “these videos merely show him walking,

3 talking, standing, and shopping” but “there are no videos of him working, carrying or

lifting heavy objects, or engaging in sports” and, therefore, “there is nothing in these

videos proving his ability to work.” (Quotation modified.) This argument is misguided

because Claimant appears to suggest that Employer had the burden of proving Claimant

was not entitled to PTD benefits. To the contrary, it was Claimant who “bore the burden

of proving he was entitled to PTD benefits.” Greer v. SYSCO Food Servs., 475 S.W.3d

655, 665 (Mo. banc 2015) (quotation modified). “The test for PTD is the worker’s ability

to compete in the open labor market.” ABB Power T & D Co. v. Kempker, 236 S.W.3d

43, 48 (Mo.App. 2007) (quotation modified). “The critical question is whether, in the

ordinary course of business, any employer reasonably would be expected to hire the

injured worker, given his present physical condition.” Id. As the Commission observed,

Claimant attempted to show an inability to compete by alleging he had the following

limitations:

Claimant testified that he drives only in emergencies, he does not go shopping unless an emergency and then he will use an electric mobility scooter while at the store, he does not like to go outside, he does not like to interact with people, including family and the general public, he spends most of his time in his bedroom with a pillow behind his neck watching TV and he uses a cane 90% of the time and at all times when he is outside.

(Quotation modified.) Due to the probative value of Employer’s surveillance videos

rebutting these allegations, the Commission concluded that Claimant failed to satisfy his

burden of proof and accordingly denied his claim for PTD benefits.

4 In sum, having examined the whole record, see Hampton, 121 S.W.3d at 223, we

cannot declare the Commission’s award of PPD benefits unsupported by competent and

substantial evidence. Claimant’s sole point is denied, and the Commission’s award is

affirmed.

BECKY J. WEST, J. – OPINION AUTHOR

DON E. BURELL, J. – CONCURS

JACK A.L. GOODMAN, J. – CONCURS