Nance v. Maxon Electric, Inc.
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 400
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Larry Nance (employee) and Maxon Electric entered a written settlement to commute future permanent total disability benefits to a lump-sum; the settlement acknowledged Nance’s Stage IV lung cancer and shortened life expectancy.
- The parties filed the settlement with the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) for approval; Nance died before the Commission ruled.
- Nance’s surviving spouse, Sherry Nance, filed unchallenged substitution paperwork and sought enforcement and approval of the settlement; Maxon attempted to withdraw the settlement.
- This court in Nance I held that statutory requirements were met, rejected Maxon’s standing argument, and remanded with a specific mandate that the Commission approve the settlement.
- On remand the Commission issued the court-directed order approving the settlement; Maxon appealed claiming (1) Mrs. Nance lacked standing, (2) the Commission’s order failed statutory requirements, and (3) the Commission’s order was improper because no party appealed the earlier Commission order.
- The appellate panel applied the law-of-the-case doctrine, reviewed whether the Commission complied with the mandate, and affirmed the Commission’s post-remand approval.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mrs. Nance) | Defendant's Argument (Maxon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mrs. Nance had standing to pursue enforcement and appeal | Mrs. Nance was properly substituted and had pecuniary interest as surviving spouse | Mrs. Nance lacked standing because substitution was not formally ordered before the Commission’s original ruling | Court: Mrs. Nance had standing; law of the case from Nance I precludes relitigation of standing |
| Whether the Commission’s approval complied with section 287.390.1 requirements | Settlement met statutory criteria (no fraud, voluntary, understood) and must be approved | Commission failed to make statutory finding that settlement was "in accordance with the rights of the parties" | Court: Nance I already addressed statute; remand mandate required approval; law of the case controls |
| Whether the Commission’s post-remand order was improper because no party appealed the 2012 Commission order | Mrs. Nance’s substitution and participation made her a party; this court entertained the appeal in Nance I | Because the Commission’s 2012 order became final (no party appealed), the remand/approval was invalid | Court: Maxon accepted party status and litigated merits in Nance I; argument was forfeited/previously decided; denied |
| Whether the Commission could deviate from the appellate mandate on remand | (Implicit) Commission must follow mandate and approve settlement | (Implicit) Commission had discretion or the mandate was inapplicable due to standing/finality issues | Court: Mandate was specific; Commission properly followed it; remand with directions must be followed without deviation |
Key Cases Cited
- Nance v. Maxon Electric, Inc., 395 S.W.3d 527 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (prior appellate decision remanding with instruction to approve settlement)
- Motor Control Specialties, Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 323 S.W.3d 843 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (remand requires proceeding in accordance with appellate mandate)
- Gerken v. Sherman, 351 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (distinguishing general remand from remand with directions)
- Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 410 S.W.3d 623 (Mo. banc 2013) (mandate with specific directions must be followed without deviation)
- Walton v. City of Berkeley, 223 S.W.3d 126 (Mo. banc) (law of the case prevents relitigation of decided issues)
- Denny v. Guyton, 57 S.W.2d 415 (Mo. 1932) (historical articulation of law-of-the-case rationale and finality)
- Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist. v. Holloran, 751 S.W.2d 749 (Mo. banc 1988) (discussing substitution and spirit-of-the-rule considerations)