KEY TAKEAWAYS

• A Missouri employer was able to cut a PPD award from nearly $34,000 to less than $10,000 after challenging an ALJ’s disability finding.

• The winning evidence wasn’t just the physician’s rating, but the documentation behind it.

• Employers can learn practical strategies from this case to help manage disability exposure and support appeals.

A Missouri appeals court has confirmed that a well-documented rating from the employer’s authorized treating physician can control the value of a permanent partial disability (PPD) claim, even when the injured worker testifies credibly about ongoing pain. In Barnett v. Kawasaki Motors, the court upheld a decision that reduced a shoulder award from 25% ($33,749.62) to the treating physician’s 7% rating ($9,449.89).

The catch: the court also made clear that a doctor’s rating is not the final word. Missouri law does not require the worker to produce his own rating, and the Commission may award more or less than any doctor’s number based on all of the evidence. A rating holds up only if it is well supported and the worker’s evidence does not outweigh it.

How to Act on This Decision

• Invest in the treating physician’s report. Ask for a rating stated within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, with a clear explanation of how the doctor reached it. In Barnett, the 7% rating was the only rating in the case, and it carried the day.
• Make sure the “why” is in the chart. The physician’s notes explained that the worker’s remaining stiffness came from his own avoidance of stretching and home exercises, not the injury itself. That explanation is what allowed the Commission to discount his testimony.
• Track therapy compliance and intervening events. Records showing a worker is not following a home exercise program, or has had a non-work injury (here, a bicycle fall), can directly reduce exposure.
• Do not assume a high ALJ award is final. The Commission reviews the record fresh and does not have to defer to the ALJ, even on credibility. An award that outruns the medical evidence may be worth appealing.
• Don’t rest on the rating alone. A worker with strong testimony and other evidence can still beat the employer’s rating. Where the worker presents well, consider whether additional evidence is needed before the hearing.
• Ask for clarification promptly. If a Commission decision is unclear or incomplete, request additional findings right away. That request cannot be made for the first time on appeal.

The Matter Behind the Story

Bradley Barnett, a materials-handling team lead at Kawasaki, tore his right rotator cuff in June 2023 while raising an overhead dock door. The company’s physician performed surgery, and Mr. Barnett returned to full duty with no restrictions in February 2024. The physician rated the shoulder at 7%. At a follow-up exam, the doctor found excellent strength and range of motion and attributed any remaining stiffness to Mr. Barnett avoiding his exercises out of fear of reinjury.

At the hearing, Mr. Barnett testified to daily pain and weakness but offered no rating of his own. The Administrative Law Judge found him credible and awarded 25%. On the employer’s appeal, the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission reduced the award to 7%, finding no credible, persuasive evidence supporting more. The Court of Appeals affirmed on September 1, 2026.

Why the Court Sided with the Employer

The court explained that Missouri’s statute (Section 287.190.6) only requires a physician to confirm that a permanent, work-related disability exists. It does not require a doctor to set the percentage. The Commission was therefore free to weigh all of the evidence and simply found the treating physician’s explanation more persuasive than the worker’s testimony. Because the disability percentage is a factual finding, the court would not second-guess it.

Case Information

Barnett v. Kawasaki Motors Mfg Corp USA and Sentry Casualty Company, No. WD88459 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. Sept. 1, 2026).

For questions about how this decision may affect open claims, please contact:

• Daniel T. Sanchez
• Or another member of the firm’s Workers’ Compensation team

This alert is provided by Goldberg Segalla for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.