Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Eastern District obstructs parties from reaching post-award compromise

Andrew Dickemann v Costco Wholesale Corporation
ED 105266
2017 MO App. Lexis 472
filed May 23, 2017


Parties are not allowed to strike their own deal after an award according to the latest case out of the court of appeals - Eastern District, in direct conflict with the Western District, in an important issue that may ultimately need to be resolved by the Supreme Court. 

The court of appeals affirms the Commission has no authority to consider joint agreements for approval under 287.390 (settlements of claims) and the proposed agreement fails because it does not meet the requirements of 287.530 (commutation)

This decision has huge implications for people who have awards, and seek to close out obligations that might stay open for decades and for injured workers who would rather have their money now than later.

This issue is deja vu for the Commission.

The Commission  has refused to approve post-award settlements in the past that it did not represent the full value of future installments. 

The Western District has told it to approve settlements  if the settlement met the requirements of 287.390.1 if it is not the result of undue influence or fraud, the employee understands his or her rights or benefits, and voluntarily agrees to accept the terms.  In Hinkle v A.B. Dick Co, 435 S.W.3d 685 (Mo App. 2014) the Commission balked about approving a settlement which paid 49% of the present value until it was ordered by the Western District to approve the settlement, following Nance, which found the controlling statutory authority for settlements was governed by 287.390.1 for non-contested commutations and not solely  287.530.

Dickemann is factually similar to Hinkle, in some respects.  The proposed settlement of $400,000 is not equal to the commutable value of future installments.  The parties seek to end their liability to pay future installments by a lump sum. In this case,  the employee seeks the settlement and the employer adopts the arguments and proposal. 

 Dickermann case declines to follow Nance or Hinkle, and claims the only controlling authority for post-award settlements is 287.530, and the parties fail to show the settlement proposal meets the statutory requirements of 287.530:  that the proposal is equal to commutable value and that unusual circumstances exist in the best interest of the parties (for example, a shorter life expectancy as in Nance) to support any commutation.  The court finds under the rubric of strict construction it cannot find a "claim", like the court in Nance, and finds only parties to claims can strike their own deals. 
Section 287.530 applied as the procedure to settle post-award liability whether the commutation was "contested" or not

The parties sought approval through criteria of 287.390 rather than 287.530 following precedent in Nance and Hinkle , and argued  the doctrine of stare decisis to follow the Western District's precedent. 

The court suggests 287.390 allowed the Commission to approve settlements only "in accordance with the rights of the parties" and the provision may conflict with the criteria  of "undue influence, understood rights, and voluntarily agrees..."  but waited for a "future case which would directly present the issue" for consideration.  Nance followed the latter criteria.


The court noted the joint agreement failed to  list any of the statutory grounds of 287.530:  best interest of the parties, unusual circumstances, or present value.  The proposal represented about 2/3 of the present value. 

The court and commission  relies upon strict construction of 287.800 and concludes  that it was legislative intent to allow post-award negotiation as an exception and only in very narrow circumstances. 

The Western District now allows parties to strike their own deal, even after an award, and determine what is in their best interest.  The Eastern District now backs a long-standing position of the Commission that workers and their employers lose that chance to negotiate further after a final award and they must live by the deal, good or bad, and there are no second bites at the apple. 

Judge Hess authored the opinion.


Tuesday, May 2, 2017

No recovery for "personal" risk from horseplay

A worker failed to show his shoulder injury arose out of his employment when he was involved with an altercation with a co-worker and fell to the ground. Grayson v Thorne and Son Asphalt Paving Company, 2017 MOWCLR LEXIS 31 (April 18, 2017).   The Commission affirmed the denial on different grounds.

The ALJ noted the 57 year old worker began work on a morning in 2015 when a co-worker reportedly grabbed him.  Claimant stated he was not a voluntary participant to the assault.

Witnesses indicated there was no animosity between the employees and they returned to their regular duties without incident.  Another employee reported that people were always goofing around but wrestling was not typical conduct.  Claimant had a history of shoulder problems and provided an evolving history how the accident occurred. 

The Commission found the risk source was purely personal and not compensable.  The ALJ denied the case as horseplay.