Dollar v. Baytos
Decision Date | 24 August 2017 |
Docket Number | 2015-SC-000194-WC, 2015-SC-000208-WC. |
Citation | 525 S.W.3d 65 |
Parties | FAMILY DOLLAR, Appellant v. Mamie BAYTOS, Widow of Stephen Baytos, Deceased, Honorable Richard M. Joiner, Administrative Law Judge, Honorable Thomas G. Polites, Administrative Law Judge and Workers' Compensation Board, Appellees and Mamie Baytos, Widow of Stephen Baytos, Deceased, Cross-Appellant v. Family Dollar, Honorable Richard M. Joiner, Administrative Law Judge, Honorable Thomas G. Polites, Administrative Law Judge and Workers' Compensation Board, Cross-Appellees |
Court | Supreme Court of Kentucky |
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE: FAMILY DOLLAR, Melanie Brooke Gabbard, Lexington, Allen Kopet & Associates, PLLC, Lewis Paisley, Lexington, Stoll Keenon Ogden, PLLC.
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT: MAMIE BAYTOS, Carl Edward Grayson, Edgewood, Blankenship Massey & Associates, PLLC.
COUNSEL FOR AMICUS CURIAE: KENTUCKY WORKERS ASSOCIATION (KWA): Jeffery Roberts, Murray, Roberts Law Office.
Steven Baytos settled his workers' compensation injury claim with his employer, Family Dollar Stores, for a lump sum. The settlement amount included separate consideration in exchange for Baytos's waiver of all future claims, specifically including future medical expenses and a "full and final waiver of any and all rights he may have to reopen this claim under Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 342.125, for any reason, including a change in condition." Baytos died a year later from his work-related injury; and, two years after that, his widow, Mamie Baytos, who was not a party to the settlement, filed a motion to reopen Baytos's injury claim to assert her own claim for a workers' compensation death benefit.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) allowed Mamie to reopen Baytos's injury claim and awarded her death benefits. The Board reversed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the Board. The Court of Appeals determined that, under Brashear v. Old Straight Creek Coal Corp.,1 claims for death benefits arising from a workers' compensation injury are not derivative of the income benefits the injured employee recovers from the employer. And as such, the Board's opinion was vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
On Family Dollar's appeal to this Court, we agree with the Court of Appeals that Mamie has a separate and viable claim for death benefits under KRS 342.750, and while we make an exception in today's case, we hold that it was improper for Mamie to assert her claim via reopening Baytos's settled claim.
Baytos was employed by Family Dollar Stores when he suffered a torn thoracic aorta in 2006. He filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits that was settled and approved by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in 2008. Steven received a lump-sum payment from Family Dollar in exchange for his waiver of any future claims he may have against his employer. Also part of the settlement agreement, Steven agreed to additional sums in exchange for waiver of any future medical expenses and another sum in consideration for his "full and final waiver of any and all rights he may have to reopen this claim under KRS 342.125, for any reason, including a change in condition." His wife, Mamie Baytos, was not part of the settlement negotiations, nor did the final approved agreement include any references to any future benefits to which she may be entitled.
Steven died in 2009 as a result of his work-related injury. In 2011, Mamie filed a "Motion to Reopen and Award Survivor Benefits to Widow" to seek death benefits. The presiding ALJ ruled that her claim was viable, but ordered her to prove Baytos's death was caused by a work-related injury in order to recover death benefits under KRS 342.750. Shortly thereafter, her case was transferred to a new ALJ, who accepted the prior ALJ's findings of fact and determined that Steven's death was a result of the injury. And so the ALJ awarded death benefits to Mamie.
Family Dollar appealed the decision to the Workers' Compensation Board. The employer argued that Mamie's claims for death benefits were barred by the settlement agreement between Baytos and Family Dollar. In turn, Mamie filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, claiming that notice of the appeal was defective. The Board ignored Mamie's motion to dismiss and reversed the ALJ's ruling on the merits, denying her claim for benefits. Baytos appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals reversed the Board's decision. First, the panel rejected Mamie's argument that Family Dollar's appeal was improperly noticed. But on the merits, the Court of Appeals determined that under Brashear v. Old Straight Creek Coal Corp. claims for death benefits arising from a workers' compensation injury are not derivative of the income benefits the injured employee recovers from his employer. And as such, the Board's opinion was vacated and remanded for further proceedings. Family Dollar now appeals to this Court.
Mamie contends that the Board erred by not dismissing Family Dollar's appeal following the ALJ's findings of fact. During the pendency of her claim, the presiding ALJ retired and was replaced by a new ALJ. She argues that the notice of appeal was defective because it named the incorrect ALJ. The Court of Appeals disagreed and determined that Family Dollar's appeal was properly noticed. And we concur.
In 2012, Family Dollar appealed to the Board following ALJ Joiner's opinion and order on the viability of her claim. The Board dismissed the appeal as interlocutory. Shortly thereafter, ALJ Joiner was replaced by ALJ Polites, who eventually issued a final and appealable order and opinion in favor of Mamie's claims. Mamie claims that Family Dollar referenced the incorrect ALJ opinion when noticing its appeal to the Board.
Family Dollar's notice of appeal began as follows:
Essentially, Mamie argues that because Family Dollar stated its desire to review the "opinion and award rendered herein by Honorable Richard Joiner," the employer failed to notice an intention to appeal a final order from the presiding ALJ.
Kentucky Administrative Rules (KAR) 803 KAR 25:010 § 21 outlines the required content of a notice of appeal taken from an ALJ to the Board. A properly filed notice must:
On the face of the notice it is clear that Family Dollar is appealing the final order entered by ALJ Polites. The notice also clearly recounts the procedural posture leading to both ALJ Polites's ruling and Family Dollar's appeal to the Board. So we concur with the Court of Appeals that Family Dollar's appeal was properly noticed to the Board.
The central substantive issue in this case is Family Dollar's assertion that Mamie's claim for death benefits should be dismissed. According to the employer, Steven completely settled his claim for all potential income benefits relating to his workers' compensation injury, and this settlement totally bars Mamie from asserting any additional claims for income benefits. In essence, Family Dollar argues that whatever benefits Mamie may be entitled to under the Workers' Compensation Act are derivative of Steven's claim and that his approved settlement preempts his widow's statutory benefits. The Court of Appeals disagreed, relying on the holding in an obscure old case, Brashear v. Old Straight Creek Coal Corp. We ultimately agree with this conclusion, but a thorough statutory review is necessary to add context to Brashear and to unpack the death-benefit-recovery claims under the Act.
KRS 342.750 provides for the recovery of income benefits for the surviving spouse if the injured employee dies as a result of a work-related injury.2 For surviving spouses, like Mamie, with no children, the statute provides that she is entitled to fifty percent of Steven's average weekly wage during widowhood.3 Of course, this law makes no overt reference to how to treat these income benefits when the injured party settles his injury claim with his employer before dying from the effects of the injury.
It is clear by the plain meaning of the text that income benefits deriving from KRS 342.730 belong to the injured worker. Those benefits are totally derivative from the workplace injury. This provision specifically relates to income benefits awarded to injured workers for workplace injuries. And sure enough, KRS 342.730 contemplates a surviving spouse's share of those benefits in the event the injured spouse dies for causes unrelated to the work injury but before the expiration of benefits still owed to the worker.4 These surviving-spouse benefits are totally and completely derivative of the injured spouse's disability benefits; any surviving spouse's share of remaining benefits is tied to whatever the worker is awarded or obtained through settlement with the employer. So it is easy for us to see in that context that the spouse's claim is dependent on the worker's claim. But with respect to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Calloway Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't v. Woodall
...that KRS 342.750 "create[s] a separate cause of action for [a] surviving spouse[ ] independent of the injured worker's claim." 525 S.W.3d 65, 72 (Ky. 2017). The Department attempts to distinguish Baytos , but any factual differences do not affect the holding that the proper way for a widow ......
-
In re Collins
...rights to future potential death benefits in order for a settlement to preclude a future claim for such benefits); Family Dollar v. Baytos , 525 S.W.3d 65, 71-72 (Ky. 2017) (rejecting employer's argument that, "[b]ecause Baytos had no benefits due to him at his death because of his fully se......
-
In re Collins
...bar the statutory rights of any dependents, since these rights are independently created by statute" and citing cases); Family Dollar v. Baytos , 525 S.W.3d 65 (Ky. 2017) (holding that a deceased covered worker's release of any and all claims he might have under the Kentucky Workers' Compen......
-
In re Collins
...bar the statutory rights of any dependents, since these rights are independently created by statute" and citing cases); Family Dollar v. Baytos, 525 S.W.3d 65 (Ky. 2017) (holding that a deceased covered worker's release of any and all claims he might have under the Kentucky Workers' Compens......