James C. Lambrich and Debra Lambrich v. Dwight Kay
507 S.W.3d 66
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- James and Debra Lambrich sued Cassens Transport Company (CTC) claiming retaliatory discrimination after James filed workers’ compensation claims; bench trial resulted in judgment for CTC and this appeal followed.
- James worked as a service porter; he reported shoulder injuries in April and August 2002, received medical treatment, and had conflicting medical opinions about his ability to return to work.
- CTC placed Lambrich on temporary total disability (TTD) and later on indefinite sick leave (ISL) when medical opinions conflicted; surveillance and reexamination led some physicians to clear him for full duty but Lambrich never returned and remains on ISL without pay.
- The Division of Workers’ Compensation awarded various permanent partial disability (PPD) ratings and denied TTD; Lambrich concurrently sued in circuit court under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.780 for retaliatory discrimination and sought damages for lost earnings and psychological injury.
- The trial court struck several petition allegations as barred by the workers’ compensation exclusivity provision (§ 287.120.2), granted summary judgment on a seniority claim, found no discriminatory motive, and ruled remaining claims either barred by exclusivity or unsupported by the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on seniority-denial claim was improper | Lambrich said seniority would give him right to choose assignments; trial court ignored testimony and inferences | CTC argued no enforceable seniority right was shown; evidence was speculative | Affirmed: no genuine issue—testimony was speculative and did not show an enforceable seniority right |
| Whether court erred by striking/excluding allegations pretrial under exclusivity without summary judgment | Lambrich: exclusivity can be raised only by summary judgment (per McCracken) | CTC: exclusivity barred certain allegations that plainly fall within Division jurisdiction; may be dismissed if defense appears on face of petition | Affirmed: court properly struck allegations that on their face sought remedies within the Workers’ Compensation Act; dismissal authorized where defense appears from pleadings |
| Whether trial court improperly inferred CTC’s motive (mistakes/misunderstandings) without evidence | Lambrich: court invented motives and denied discovery into motive | CTC: court drew reasonable inferences from testimony; witnesses denied retaliatory intent | Affirmed: bench credibility findings reasonable; court did not err in inferring non-retaliatory business reasons |
| Whether trial court abused discretion denying motions to compel deposition answers about motive | Lambrich: motive always relevant in retaliation and Rule 57.03 doesn’t permit refusing on relevance | CTC: objections included privilege and relevance; trial court sustained without transcript error | Affirmed: appellant failed to provide hearing transcript; appellate courts presume record supports trial court; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether placing employee on ISL and cessation of TTD barred by exclusivity or actionable under § 287.780 | Lambrich: § 287.780 prohibits discrimination "in any way"; his financial and psychological losses aren’t confined to "accident" remedies | CTC: claims about benefit denial, claim administration, and medical treatment are remedial under the Workers’ Comp Act and thus exclusive to the Division | Affirmed: financial and psychological claims tied to compensation/benefit denial fall within exclusivity; even on merits, no discharge/retaliation proven |
Key Cases Cited
- ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary judgment burden-shifting standard)
- McCracken v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 298 S.W.3d 473 (Mo. banc 2009) (exclusivity is an affirmative defense; not jurisdictional)
- Felts v. Ford Motor Co., 916 S.W.2d 798 (Mo. App. 1995) (claims alleging interference with medical treatment or denial/administration of benefits are within Division exclusivity)
- Wiley v. Shank & Flattery, Inc., 848 S.W.2d 2 (Mo. App. 1992) (employer interference with medical care and forced return-to-work claims barred by exclusivity)
- Phillips v. Ford Motor Co., 83 F.3d 235 (8th Cir.) (claims seeking remedies based on denial of workers’ compensation benefits are within exclusive jurisdiction of workers’ compensation system)
- Hansome v. Northwestern Cooperage Co., 679 S.W.2d 273 (Mo. banc 1984) (elements of § 287.780 retaliation claim)
- Templemire v. W & M Welding, Inc., 433 S.W.3d 371 (Mo. banc 2014) (replacing Hansome’s exclusive-cause standard with a contributing-factor causation standard)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for bench trials)