Phillip Carter, DEC v. Treasurer of the State of Missouri-Custodian of The Second Injury Fund
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1065
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Phillip Carter suffered a compensable work injury (filed claim Nov. 8, 2006) and an ALJ awarded him permanent total disability benefits on Aug. 18, 2009, payable "for as long as [he] remains so disabled." The award contained no findings on dependents.
- Phillip died April 13, 2014 of causes unrelated to the work injury; the Second Injury Fund stopped benefit payments upon his death.
- Edith Joanne Carter moved before the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission to substitute herself for Phillip and to have his permanent total disability benefits continued and paid to her as a surviving dependent under Schoemehl.
- The Commission dismissed her motion, holding it lacked statutory authority because the Aug. 18, 2009 award was final and contained no dependency findings; Carter appealed.
- While this appeal was pending Carter obtained a court judgment entering the ALJ award as a judgment and the circuit court later ordered the Fund to pay benefits to Carter; that ruling is the subject of a separate appeal decided the same day.
Issues
| Issue | Carter's Argument | Treasurer (Fund) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commission could substitute Carter and order Phillip's PTD benefits continued to her after his death | Carter: Sections 287.530 and 287.203 and Schoemehl permit the Commission to determine dependent entitlement and continue benefits to dependents | Fund: The award was final with no dependency findings; statutory amendments and finality deprive the Commission of authority to reopen and grant Schoemehl relief | Court: Commission lacked authority to substitute or reinstate benefits because the final award contained no dependency findings and no applicable reopening statute applied |
| Whether Carter was denied due process because no procedure existed to litigate her Schoemehl claim after the award became final | Carter: No available procedure to litigate her right to successor benefits | Fund: A procedure existed if dependency had been preserved in the final award; failure to preserve dependency is not a due-process violation | Court: No due-process violation; a procedure existed (would have been preserved by dependency finding), but Carter failed to preserve that issue in the final award |
Key Cases Cited
- Schoemehl v. Treasurer of Missouri, 217 S.W.3d 900 (Mo. banc 2007) (held dependents can receive PTD benefits when employee dies of causes unrelated to the work injury)
- Gervich v. Condaire, Inc., 370 S.W.3d 617 (Mo. banc 2012) (2008 statutory amendments abrogated Schoemehl prospectively; Schoemehl still applies to claims pending during Jan. 9, 2007–June 26, 2008 window if not finally resolved)
- Strait v. Treasurer of Missouri, 257 S.W.3d 600 (Mo. banc 2008) (same window application of Schoemehl when no final award existed)
- White v. University of Missouri, Kansas City, 375 S.W.3d 908 (Mo. App. 2012) (Commission may determine dependency status at time of injury in final award to preserve contingent Schoemehl rights, but cannot adjudicate future successor entitlement while employee is alive)
- Bennett v. Treasurer of State of Missouri, 271 S.W.3d 49 (Mo. App. 2008) (Section 287.203 does not authorize awarding Schoemehl benefits when final award omitted the issue)
- Buescher v. Mo. Highway & Transp. Comm'n, 254 S.W.3d 105 (Mo. App. 2008) (after appeal period expires, the Commission lacks authority to modify or further explicate a final award)