JANET ANHALT v. PENMAC PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC., and ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
505 S.W.3d 842
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Claimant, employed by staffing company Penmac, slipped on ice in the parking lot of Reckitt (a Penmac client) after her shift and was injured.
- Parties agreed Penmac employed Claimant but Reckitt owned/controlled the parking lot; under Missouri law after-work injuries are generally not compensable unless employer owns/controls site or another statutory theory applies.
- Claimant argued to the ALJ that Reckitt was her statutory employer under § 287.040, making the on-premises injury compensable under the extended-premises doctrine; the ALJ rejected this and denied benefits.
- On Commission review Claimant challenged only the statutory-employer ruling, but the Commission reversed and awarded benefits on a different theory (joint control/joint benefit per Leach/Shurvington) that Claimant had not advanced.
- Penmac requested remand for opportunity to present evidence on the newly adopted Leach/Shurvington theory; the Commission denied remand and Penmac appealed.
- The court reversed and remanded, holding that the Commission could not decide a new liability theory without giving the parties appropriate notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commission may award benefits on a liability theory not raised on appeal | Claimant: Commission may decide issues beyond the exact theory raised; not limited to proponent's offered theory | Penmac: Award on unraised theory violated due process—no notice or chance to present evidence | Court: Reversed; Commission cannot adopt new theory without notice and opportunity to be heard |
| Whether denial of remand to allow evidence on new theory was proper | Claimant: Oral argument indicated the theory; remand unnecessary | Penmac: Denial deprived it of meaningful opportunity to respond and present evidence | Court: Denial of remand was error; remand required for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Nolan v. Degussa Admixtures, Inc., 246 S.W.3d 1 (Mo.App.) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Mell v. Biebel Bros., Inc., 247 S.W.3d 26 (Mo.App.) (Commission limited by due process when deciding non-appealed issues)
- Stonecipher v. Poplar Bluff R-1 School Dist., 205 S.W.3d 326 (Mo.App.) (same due-process principle applied in workers' comp context)
- Leach v. Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 118 S.W.3d 646 (Mo.App.) (joint control/joint benefit theory referenced by Commission)
- Shurvington v. Cavender Drywall, 36 S.W.3d 432 (Mo.App.) (joint service principles cited by Commission)
- Scholastic, Inc. v. Viley, 452 S.W.3d 680 (Mo.App.) (extended-premises doctrine and owner/control requirement)