Hoesli v. Triplett, Inc.
303 Kan. 358
| Kan. | 2015Background
- Douglas Hoesli, a full-time maintenance worker, was receiving Social Security retirement benefits and working when he suffered a compensable workplace injury.
- His workers' compensation weekly award ($341.08) was less than the weekly equivalent of his Social Security retirement benefit ($420).
- The ALJ and the Workers Compensation Board applied K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 44-501(h) to offset Hoesli's workers' compensation by his Social Security retirement benefits, subject to a minimum payment for functional impairment.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, relying on Dickens and related cases that created an exception when a claimant is already receiving retirement benefits (or was retired and working to supplement them).
- The Kansas Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the plain language of K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 44-501(h) requires an offset whenever a claimant is receiving Social Security retirement benefits, and whether applying the statute violates equal protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hoesli) | Defendant's Argument (Triplett) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 44-501(h) requires offset of workers' compensation by Social Security retirement benefits when claimant is receiving those benefits at time of injury | Dickens exception should apply; claimant should recover both streams when benefits are not duplicative (retiree supplementing income) | Statute's plain text applies to any claimant receiving Social Security retirement benefits; no exception | The statute is unambiguous and requires offset whenever the claimant is receiving Social Security retirement benefits; Dickens and its progeny overruled |
| Whether stare decisis requires retaining Dickens and related exceptions | Dickens should be followed as binding precedent protecting retired supplementing workers | Dickens misapplied statutory text; precedent must yield when clearly erroneous and harmful | Court overruled Dickens, concluding it relied on perceived legislative purpose contrary to unambiguous statutory language |
| Whether the statute must be construed to avoid constitutional infirmity (constitutional avoidance) | Statute should be read to preserve constitutionality (i.e., adopt Dickens construction) | Plain meaning controls; cannot rewrite an unambiguous statute to avoid constitutional question | Constitutional-avoidance canon inappropriate because the statutory text is unambiguous; court applied plain meaning and then addressed constitutionality |
| Whether K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 44-501(h) violates Equal Protection by distinguishing claimants who receive retirement benefits | Offset discriminates against retirement-benefit recipients and is not rationally related to preventing duplicative wage-loss benefits post-2000 Social Security amendments | Classification is rationally related to legitimate objective of preventing duplication of wage-loss benefits; Social Security remains wage-loss protection | Under rational-basis review, the statute is constitutional; the offset is rationally related to avoiding duplicative wage-loss benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Dickens v. Pizza Co., Inc., 266 Kan. 1066 (1999) (created exception to offset for retirees supplementing Social Security; overruled)
- Wishon v. Cossman, 268 Kan. 99 (1999) (offset applied where benefits converted from SSDI to retirement; emphasized plain statutory language)
- Whaley v. Sharp, 301 Kan. 192 (2014) (statutory interpretation principles; de novo review of Board legal conclusions)
- Rhoten v. Dickson, 290 Kan. 92 (2010) (stare decisis principles and when precedent may be overruled)
- Graham v. Dokter Trucking Group, 284 Kan. 547 (2007) (plain-language statutory interpretation governs when statute is unambiguous)
- Casco v. Armour Swift-Eckrich, 283 Kan. 508 (2007) (courts should not read words into clear statutory text)
- Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005) (canon of constitutional avoidance applies only between competing plausible interpretations)