2018 MO App LEXIS ____
December 18, 2018
WD 81273
https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=134428
The court of appeals affirms a dismissal of a petition to hold the employer in contempt for not paying interest accrued on appeal of a worker's compensation award .
" Our courts have long held that Section 511.340 prohibits the use of civil contempt to enforce the mere payment of money....This case offers no reason to depart from that settled principle. "
The employer had paid after an award of more than $300,000 in benefits but did not pay accrued interest while the employer appealed the award.
The award was for interest "as required by law." Interest is determined by 287.160.3. The court found the award supported an obligation to award interest.
The employer argued the award was indeterminate and only the Commission had jurisdiction to determine the liablity. The court rejected the arguments.
This was not an "open" claim that compelled exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission and the trial court had the inherent authority to make the calculation of the exact amount due because it is not an outstanding factual issue, even though the amount and interest was not expressly indicated in the award
"Section 287.160.3 is not recited here, but its terms plainly describe the amount of interest that will accrue on weekly benefit payments, and the date or event after which interest will accrue."
The court found contempt was not available as a remedy to enforce a money judgment. "Claimant's argument to use civil contempt to support a money judgment is not supported by well-settle law."
The court notes exceptions such as child support cases were distinguishable. The contempt remedy could apply when a party fails to perform other obligations beyond the payment of money such as not providing medical treatment ordered by the commission.
The court notes the employer did not raise the issue in its motion to dismiss that claimant had never reduced the award to a judgment pursuant to 287.500 so there was no judgment for the trial court to consider. The defendant in its motion failed to identify controlling case law to support its argument and improperly cited a per curium decision (footnote 9).
