Dickemann v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
550 S.W.3d 65
| Mo. | 2018Background
- In 2010 Andrew Dickemann was injured at work and later awarded permanent total disability benefits of $799.11/week by an ALJ; the award became final in April 2014.
- In November 2016 Dickemann and Costco executed a "Stipulation for Voluntary Settlement and Agreement to Commute Award" under which Costco would pay $400,000 as a lump sum to fully satisfy the weekly award.
- The parties asked the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission to approve the Agreement; the Commission refused, ruling it was neither an approvable "settlement" under § 287.390 nor a valid "commutation" under § 287.530.
- The Commission found the commutable value of the remaining weekly payments (using a 20‑year life expectancy and 4% discount) exceeded $590,000, so the $400,000 lump sum failed the statutory equivalence requirement; other statutory commutation criteria were also not addressed.
- Dickemann appealed, arguing (relying on Nance) that post‑award lump‑sum agreements are "claims" subject to § 287.390 approval; the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the Commission and rejected Nance's approach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commission must approve the post‑award lump‑sum agreement as a "settlement" under § 287.390 | Dickemann: Post‑award agreement is a "claim" under § 287.390 (Nance) and thus must be approved if voluntary and not procured by fraud/undue influence | Costco: Adopted Dickemann’s brief; both parties argued approval under § 287.390 | Court: No. Once an award is final, parties are not "parties to claims" for § 287.390; statute applies to claims, not rights after final award, so Commission had no authority to approve under § 287.390 |
| Whether the Agreement qualified as a lawful "commutation" under § 287.530 | Dickemann: Commission should treat the agreement as a commutation or defer to parties' agreement | Costco: Same as plaintiff | Court: No. § 287.530 requires lump sum equal to the commutable present value (considering life contingencies) and other findings; $400,000 < $590,000 present value and statutory factors were not addressed, so commutation approval was improper |
| Whether Nance and its progeny remain controlling | Dickemann: Nance supports treating uncontested commutations as settlements under § 287.390 | — | Court: Rejects Nance; its reasoning is inconsistent with the plain language of §§ 287.390 and 287.530 and is disapproved |
| Whether Commission's order refusing approval was final and appealable | Dickemann: Parties appealed without modifying the Agreement | Costco: Adopted Dickemann’s position | Court: Order was final and appealable under Mayes because parties stood on original pleadings and did not intend to refile |
Key Cases Cited
- Nance v. Maxon Elec. Inc., 395 S.W.3d 527 (Mo. App. 2012) (held post‑award lump‑sum commutation treated as a "claim" under § 287.390)
- Mayes v. Saint Luke's Hosp. of Kan. City, 430 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. banc 2014) (dismissal without prejudice may be final and appealable when plaintiff stands on original pleadings)
- Spradling v. SSM Health Care St. Louis, 313 S.W.3d 683 (Mo. banc 2010) (questions of statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Wolff Shoe Co. v. Dir. of Revenue, 762 S.W.2d 29 (Mo. banc 1988) (statutory construction: ascertain legislature intent from plain language)