Dickemann v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

• Citation: 550 S.W.3d 65
• Decision Date: 22 May 2018
• Docket Number: No. SC 96513,SC 96513
• Parties: Andrew DICKEMANN, Appellant, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Respondent.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

550 S.W.3d 65

Andrew DICKEMANN, Appellant,

v.COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Respondent.

No. SC 96513

Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc.

Opinion issued May 22, 2018

Dickemann was represented by James G. Krispin, an attorney in St. Louis, (314) 721-2060.

Costco was represented by Maurice D. Early of Early & Miranda PC in St. Louis, (314) 241-3030.

Paul C. Wilson, Judge

Following a work-related injury, Andrew Dickemann ("Dickemann") filed a workers' compensation claim against his employer, Costco Wholesale Corporation ("Costco"). A final award granted Dickemann permanent total disability benefits to be paid weekly. Two years later, the parties agreed Costco would make a lump sum payment to fully satisfy Dickemann’s award. The parties requested that the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission ("Commission") approve this agreement, but the Commission declined to do so on the grounds that: (1) the Commission has no authority to approve the agreement as a "settlement" under section 287.390;¹ and (2) the Commission cannot approve the agreement as an application for a "commutation" because Costco’s proposed lump sum payment was not equal to the commutable value of the future weekly payments Dickemann would be giving up, as required by section 287.530. Dickemann appealed. This Court has jurisdiction under article V, section 10, of the Missouri Constitution, and the Commission’s decision is affirmed.

Background

In July 2010, Dickemann was injured in the course and scope of his employment with Costco and he filed a workers' compensation claim. A hearing was held on Dickemann’s claim before an administrative law judge ("ALJ") of the Missouri Division of Workers' Compensation. The ALJ awarded Dickemann permanent total disability benefits in the amount of $799.11 per week, to be paid weekly beginning retroactively on March 1, 2013. Because neither party sought review by the Commission, the award became final in April 2014.

In November 2016, Dickemann and Costco entered into a "Stipulation for Voluntary Settlement and Agreement to Commute Award" (the "Agreement"). Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Costco agreed to pay Dickemann a lump sum of $400,000, which the parties agreed would fully and finally satisfy Dickemann’s award of weekly permanent total disability benefits. In the Agreement, Dickemann acknowledged he voluntarily accepted the terms of the agreement, he understood his rights and benefits, and there had been no undue influence or fraud.

After the Agreement was signed, the parties presented it to the Commission with a request that it be approved. The Commission refused to approve the Agreement, however, on the grounds that: (1) the Agreement was not a "settlement" of a "claim," which the Commission is authorized to approve under section 287.390; and (2) the Agreement failed to meet the requirements for a "commutation," which the Commission is authorized to grant under section 287.530.²

Analysis

In Dickemann’s sole point on appeal,³ he claims the Commission erred in refusing to approve the parties' Agreement, either as a "settlement" of a "claim" under section 287.390, or as a "commutation" under section 287.530. Dickemann relies upon Nance v. Maxon Elec. Inc. , 395 S.W.3d 527 (Mo. App. 2012), and its progeny, which hold a post-award agreement to forego weekly benefits in exchange for a lump sum payment is a "claim" for purposes of section 287.530,⁴ and the Commission is bound to approve that agreement if the employee fully understands his or her rights, has agreed to the settlement voluntarily, and the agreement was not procured as the result of undue influence or fraud. Because this Court rejects this argument and affirms the Commission’s decision not to approve the Agreement, Nance and its progeny should no longer be followed.

This Court’s review of the Commission’s decision is governed by section 288.210. The Court "may modify, reverse, remand for rehearing, or set aside the decision of the commission on the following grounds:" (1) "the commission acted without or in excess of its powers;" (2) "the decision was procured by fraud;" (3) "the facts found by the commission do not support the award;" or (4) "there was not sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the award." Id. On review, this Court is bound by the Commission’s factual findings, provided such findings "are supported by competent and substantial evidence." Id. This Court is not, however, bound by the Commission’s conclusions of law. Id. Additionally, questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo. Spradling v. SSM Health Care St. Louis , 313 S.W.3d 683, 686 (Mo. banc 2010).

"The primary rule of statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the legislature from the language used, to give effect to that intent if possible, and to consider the words used in their plain and ordinary meaning." Wolff Shoe Co. v. Dir. of Revenue , 762 S.W.2d 29, 31 (Mo. banc 1988). "Absent express definition, statutory language is given its plain and ordinary meaning, as typically found in the dictionary." State v. Brookside Nursing Ctr., Inc. , 50 S.W.3d 273, 276 (Mo. banc 2001) (internal citation omitted). "The provisions of a legislative act must be construed and considered together and, if possible, all provisions must be harmonized and every clause given some meaning." Wollard v. City of Kan. City , 831 S.W.2d 200, 203 (Mo. banc 1992) (internal citations omitted). "The legislature is presumed not to enact meaningless provisions." Id. (internal citations omitted).⁵

The Commission was correct in determining it could not approve the Agreement as an application for a "commutation" under section 287.530. This statute provides:

The compensation provided in this chapter may be commuted by the division or the commission and redeemed by the payment in whole or in part, by the employer, of a lump sum which shall be fixed by the division or the commission, which sum shall be equal to the commutable value of the future installments which may be due under this chapter, taking account of life contingencies , the payment to be commuted at its present value upon application of either party , with due notice to the other, if it appears that the commutation will be for the best interests of the employee or the dependents of the deceased employee, or that it will avoid undue expense or undue hardship to either party, or that the employee or dependent has removed or is about to remove from the United States or that the employer has sold or otherwise disposed of the greater part of his business or assets.

§ 287.530.1 (emphasis added).

Notably, this statute also provides that a "commutation is a departure from the normal method of payment and is to be allowed only when it clearly appears that some unusual circumstances warrant such a departure." § 287.530.2. Additionally, when determining whether a commutation is in the best interest of the employee, the Commission is required to "constantly bear in mind ... that compensation payments are in lieu of wages and are to be received by the injured employee or his dependents in the same manner in which wages are ordinarily paid." Id. Finally, notwithstanding the holding in Nance , the plain language of this statute simply does not support the conclusion that it applies only to "contested" applications for a commutation and that all "uncontested" applications for a commutation are free to proceed as "voluntary agreements" subject to review and approval only under section 287.390.1. Instead, section 287.530.1 applies to all efforts—by one or both parties—to commute a final award of weekly benefits to a single lump sum payment.

Here, the $400,000 lump sum proposed in the Agreement failed the financial equivalency requirement set forth in section 287.530.1 because the commutable value of the future installments, taking into account Dickemann’s life contingency, was at least $590,000.⁶ Additionally, none of the remaining considerations required by section 287.530.1 were addressed in the Agreement or before the Commission. For these reasons, any one of which would have been sufficient, the Commission properly refused to approve a commutation pursuant to the Agreement.

The parties sought to avoid the requirements of section 287.530.1 by arguing the Agreement was a "settlement" the Commission was authorized—and, indeed, bound—to approve under section 287.390. This statute provides, in relevant part:

Parties to claims hereunder may enter into voluntary agreements in settlement thereof, but no agreement ... shall be valid, nor shall any agreement of settlement or compromise of any dispute or claim for compensation under this chapter be valid until approved by an administrative law judge or the commission.... An administrative law judge, or the commission, shall approve a settlement agreement as valid and enforceable

...