United States Department of Veterans Affairs v. Boresi
2013 Mo. LEXIS 25
| Mo. | 2013Background
- VA petitioned in circuit court for a writ of mandamus to compel intervention in Hollis’ Missouri workers’ compensation proceeding to recover care costs.
- Hollis, a veteran, filed a workers’ compensation claim arising from a 2002 work injury against United Homecraft, Inc.; VA-treated care totaled $18,958.53.
- Employer did not authorize the VA care; VA sought to intervene under 38 U.S.C. § 1729 to recover those costs from a third party via the workers’ compensation process.
- ALJ denied VA’s motion to intervene, holding no authority to permit intervention in workers’ compensation proceedings.
- Circuit court denied the VA’s mandamus petition after a hearing; the VA appealed to challenge the denial.
- Court holds that federal law (§ 1729) permits VA intervention in state workers’ compensation proceedings to recover care costs, despite state procedural rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1729 permits VA intervention in a state workers’ compensation proceeding | Hollis’ case permits VA recovery from third party under § 1729. | Missouri workers’ comp procedures do not permit third-party intervention. | Yes; § 1729 authorizes VA intervention. |
| Whether federal supremacy overrides state procedural limits on intervention | Federal law governs and preempts state rules. | State procedure governs intervention in state proceedings. | Federal law governs; no state law bars intervention. |
| Whether VA pleading to intervene met required standards | VA’s motion adequately stated purpose and authority to intervene. | VA failed to allege entitlement to payment because care wasn’t authorized. | Pleading sufficient under chapter 287; technical formal pleadings not required. |
| Whether circuit court abused its discretion in denying mandamus | Circuit court abused its discretion by denying intervention under federal law. | Circuit court properly applied state procedures and discretion. | Abuse of discretion; circuit court reversal and mandamus issued. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. New Jersey, Violent Crimes Compensation Bd., 831 F.2d 458 (3d Cir. 1987) (federal law preempts state limits on VA recovery for care costs)
- Panhandle Oil Co. v. Knox, 277 U.S. 218 (Sup. Ct. 1928) (federal supremacy principle in recovery/collection)
- Groce v. Pyle, 315 S.W.2d 482 (Mo. App. 1958) (COMPENSATION Act is exclusive code; internal procedures)
- State ex rel. Ashby Road Partners, LLC v. State Tax Com’n, 297 S.W.3d 80 (Mo. banc 2009) (denial of writ review when preliminary order issued; appellate path)
- United States v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield, 999 F.2d 1542 (11th Cir. 1993) (federal entitlement to recover from third parties for VA care costs)