287.063. Occupational diseases, presumption of exposure — last employer liable — statute of limitations, starts running, when. — 1. An employee shall be conclusively deemed to have been exposed to the hazards of an occupational disease when for any length of time, however short, he is employed in an occupation or process in which the hazard of the disease exists, subject to the provisions relating to occupational disease due to repetitive motion, as is set forth in subsection 8 of section 287.067.
2. The employer liable for the compensation in this section provided shall be the employer in whose employment the employee was last exposed to the hazard of the occupational disease prior to evidence of disability, regardless of the length of time of such last exposure, subject to the notice provision of section 287.420.
3. The statute of limitation referred to in section 287.430 shall not begin to run in cases of occupational disease until it becomes reasonably discoverable and apparent that an injury has been sustained related to such exposure, except that in cases of loss of hearing due to industrial noise said limitation shall not begin to run until the employee is eligible to file a claim as hereinafter provided in section 287.197.
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. KCP & L Greater Missouri Operations Co. v. Cook, 353 S.W.3d 14 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 26× “At the same time, the legislature enacted section 287.063, RSMo 1959, which set out the procedure for an employer's and employee's election of occupational disease coverage, the notice of election requirements, when an employee is deemed to have been exposed to an occupational…”
Coloney v. Accurate Superior Scale Co., 952 S.W.2d 755 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 17× “ACCURATE asserts the Commission erred in interpreting the “last exposure rule,” section 287.063, RSMo.1986, as *757 amended.”
Miller v. U.S. Airways Grp., Inc., 316 S.W.3d 462 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 12× “I am not sure that the Commission should be understood as ruling as a matter of law that there was only one "injury" within the meaning of section 287.063. But even assuming that the Commission so decided, there was no legal ruling on the statute of limitations issue (which the…”
Johnson v. Denton Constr. Co., 911 S.W.2d 286 (Mo. 1995).
· cites it 5× “Nevertheless, the ALJ awarded no compensation based on an interpretation of the “last exposure rule,” § 287.063 RSMol986. The Commission reversed the ALJ, granted temporary total disability benefits, and directed further medical treatment, including decompression surgery.”
Cuba v. Jon Thomas Salons, Inc., 33 S.W.3d 542 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 16× “Cuba argues that the Commission erred in determining liability for the last exposure rule under Section 287.063 and the three-month rule under Section 287.”
Pierce v. BSC, INC., 207 S.W.3d 619 (Mo. 2006).
· cites it 6× “At the time of Pierce’s claim, section 287.063 stated: An employee shall be conclusively deemed to have been exposed to the hazards of an occupational disease when for any length of time, however short, he is employed in an occupation or process in which the hazard of the…”
Tunstill v. Eagle Sheet Metal Works, 870 S.W.2d 264 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 10× “King, Enyard, and White did not involve the application of § 287.063, for they were proceedings which commenced prior to its enactment.”
Endicott v. Display Tech., Inc., 77 S.W.3d 612 (Mo. 2002).
· cites it 4× “Yet, by history, his doctor concluded that Endi-cott’s work at Display Tech was the most substantial contributing factor, and in effect the cause of his injuries.”
Pippin v. St. Joe Minerals Corp., 799 S.W.2d 898 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 10× “Considering the mandate of § 287.063, RSMo 1986, and the other findings by the Commission, the Commission's denial of benefits on the basis stated in its findings is, in my opinion, clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence presented regarding decedent's…”
Hunsicker v. J.C. Indus., Inc., 952 S.W.2d 376 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 13× “§ 287.063 RSMo. (1994). A determination that the employee has been “compensably injured” is necessary before the state can assess liability against any employer under section 287.”
Kelley v. Banta & Stude Const. Co., Inc., 1 S.W.3d 43 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 6× “The ALJ and the Commission considered: (1) application of the last exposure rule set out in section 287.063 RSMo 1994; (2) the fact that American States was not named as an insurer in the original, first amended or second amended 1995-1996 claims; (3) whether the allegation of…”
Copeland v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, 207 S.W.3d 189 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 18× “AWG claims that the Commission, misapplying the rule of last exposure in section 287.063, 1 erroneously assessed liability for the award against it rather than against Claimant’s last employer, Respondent Elite Logistics, Inc.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.063(1) — 1 case
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.063(2) — 1 case
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.063(5) — 2 cases
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.063(6) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.