Nance v. Maxon Electric, Inc.
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1401
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Sherry Nance appeals the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of a joint commutation of Larry Nance's future PTD benefits into a lump sum.
- Larry died the day after the parties re-filed a joint commutation request with the Commission, after Maxon Electric attempted to withdraw support.
- Historically, Larry was found permanently and totally disabled in 1993; Maxon had earlier sought to settle future PTD benefits by lump sum, which the Commission previously denied in 1994.
- In 2011, the parties signed a revised joint agreement to commute $181,434.24, with life-expectancy attestations, and filed it with the Commission shortly before Larry’s death.
- The Commission later denied the request, holding the present value of the future PTD payments was zero due to Larry’s death and asserting no authority to approve the agreement.
- The Missouri Court of Appeals reverses, holding the Commission had authority to review under 287.390 and to approve a commutation under 287.530 even if the lump-sum exceeded the present value of future installments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commission had authority to review and approve the settlement under 287.390. | Nance: Commission may approve any valid settlement under 287.390. | Maxon: 287.390 applies only to original-claim settlements and not to post-final awards; commission lacked authority here. | Yes; Commission has authority to review and approve under 287.390. |
| Whether the Commission could approve a commutation under 287.530 when the present value was zero after death. | Nance: death does not bar commutation; dependents may proceed; the agreement should be approved. | Maxon: cannot commute for more than present value; death yields zero present value, so no authority to approve | Yes; Commission may approve under 287.530 despite nonzero settlement terms and death, and must review under 287.390. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goad v. Treasurer of Missouri, 372 S.W.3d 1 (Mo.App. W.D.2011) (statutory amendments affect discretionary rejection of settlements)
- Roth v. J.J. Brouk & Co., 356 S.W.3d 786 (Mo.App. E.D.2011) (agencies must approve settlements within statutory duty)
- Grubbs v. Treasurer of Missouri, 298 S.W.3d 907 (Mo.App. E.D.2009) (interpretation of 'claim' includes informal settlements)
- Treasurer of Missouri v. Cook, 323 S.W.3d 105 (Mo.App. W.D.2010) (settlements construed with regard to statutory language)
- Conley v. Treasurer of Missouri, 999 S.W.2d 269 (Mo.App. E.D.1999) (final awards generally binding, with limited modification avenues)