Nancy Naeter v. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund
576 S.W.3d 233
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Employee (Naeter) worked for Buzzi Unicem from 1984–2005 and filed an original workers’ compensation claim (Oct. 17, 2006) for occupational hearing loss.
- First amended claim (Dec. 3, 2010) added tinnitus and Meniere’s disease as injured body parts against the Employer.
- Second amended claim (Dec. 16, 2011) added the Second Injury Fund (SIF) and alleged permanent total disability from preexisting Meniere’s disease; the Employer portion was unchanged.
- Employer and Employee settled the employer claim by stipulation on Oct. 23, 2012.
- ALJ and the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission held the SIF claim time-barred under § 287.430 because the SIF claim was filed more than two years after injury and more than one year after the prior claim against Employer; Employee appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second amended form that added the SIF constitutes “a claim” against the Employer (triggering the 1‑year SIF limitation) | Naeter: the second amended claim (or the later settlement stipulation) should be treated as a claim against Employer because Employer remained a real party in interest and the Meniere’s disease allegation links Employer liability to SIF liability | SIF/Commission: the second amended filing did not amend or supplement the Employer claim and thus is not "a claim" against Employer; settlement stipulation counts only when no prior claim was filed | Court: second amended claim did not amend Employer claim and did not relate back; SIF claim was time‑barred; settlement is a claim only when no prior claim was filed |
| Whether a settlement stipulation with Employer can start the SIF 1‑year period when a prior employer claim exists | Naeter: the stipulation should be treated as "a claim" and trigger the 1‑year period | SIF/Commission: where a formal claim already exists, the stipulation does not independently start the SIF period | Court: follows Cook/Grubbs/Couch distinction — stipulation counts as a claim only if no earlier claim was filed; here a prior claim existed, so stipulation does not start the SIF clock |
Key Cases Cited
- Treasurer of State–Custodian of Second Injury Fund v. Witte, 414 S.W.3d 455 (Mo. banc 2013) (standards for appellate review and legal questions in workers’ compensation)
- Dickemann v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 550 S.W.3d 65 (Mo. banc 2018) (strict construction cannot add or subtract statutory words; plain meaning controls)
- Goad v. Treasurer of State, 372 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (amendments relate back only when they add cause/effect/injury tied to original claim)
- Ford v. American Brake Shoe Co., 252 S.W.2d 649 (Mo. App. 1952) (civil‑practice rule on relation back of amendments that perfect or amplify original pleading)
- Grubbs v. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund, 298 S.W.3d 907 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (settlement stipulation may constitute a claim when no claim was filed before settlement)
- Treasurer of the State of Missouri–Custodian of Second Injury Fund v. Cook, 323 S.W.3d 105 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (agrees settlement is a claim only where no formal prior claim exists)
- Treasurer of the State of Missouri–Custodian of the 2nd Injury Fund v. Couch, 478 S.W.3d 417 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (if a claim was filed before settlement, the stipulation is not treated as the triggering claim for SIF limitations)
- Elrod v. Treasurer of Missouri, 138 S.W.3d 714 (Mo. banc 2004) ("a claim" includes any timely claim; statutory language should not be narrowed to mean only an original claim)