Eddington v. Eppert Oil Co., Docket Nos. 113283
| Citation | 459 N.W.2d 103,184 Mich.App. 771 |
| Decision Date | 23 August 1990 |
| Docket Number | Docket Nos. 113283,113323 |
| Parties | Charlotte EDDINGTON v. EPPERT OIL COMPANY, et al. 184 Mich.App. 771, 459 N.W.2d 103 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
[184 MICHAPP 772] Chambers, Steiner, Mazur, Ornstein & Amlin, P.C. by Angela J. Nicita, Detroit, for Charlotte Eddington.
[184 MICHAPP 773] Clark, Klein & Beaumont by Michael V. Kell and Thomas S. Nowinski, Detroit, for The Budd Co.
Clark, Klein & Beaumont by Dwight H. Vincent and Rachelle G. Silberberg, Detroit, for amicus curiae Michigan Mfrs. Ass'n.
Before REILLY, P.J., and MICHAEL J. KELLY and DEMING, * JJ.
Plaintiff, Charlotte Eddington, personal representative of the estate of Bobby Gene Eddington, and intervening plaintiff, The Budd Company, each appeal from a circuit court order granting Budd a workers' compensation lien against proceeds received by plaintiff in settlement of a third-party tort claim.
Plaintiff's decedent, Bobby Gene Eddington, was employed by a subsidiary of Budd. During his employment, Mr. Eddington used chemicals manufactured by the defendants. In February of 1982, Mr. Eddington died due to exposure to toxic fumes released by these chemicals. Following Mr. Eddington's death, Budd paid weekly workers' compensation survivor benefits to plaintiff as surviving spouse. Upon plaintiff's remarriage, Budd continued payment of workers' compensation benefits to decedent's minor children.
In April of 1983, plaintiff brought a wrongful death action against defendants. In October of 1986, plaintiff and the defendants settled the claim by entry of two consent judgments providing for structured settlements. In December of 1986, the circuit court permitted Budd to intervene as a [184 MICHAPP 774] plaintiff to assert its lien against the settlement awards for reimbursement of workers' compensation benefits it paid to decedent's survivors.
In September of 1988, the circuit court issued an opinion and an order granting Budd a lien against part of the settlement award. The court held that Budd's workers' compensation lien did not attach to noneconomic damages awarded to plaintiff for loss of consortium, but did attach to the total structured settlement for the benefits of decedent's three children, including payments which would be made to the children after they reached the age of eighteen. The court also held that the present value of the structured settlement awards should be used for purposes of applying the Franges 1 formula to apportion the settlement award.
The first issue we address is whether the circuit court erred in finding that Budd's workers' compensation lien would apply to only part of plaintiff's total tort recovery against defendants. Budd argues that its lien should apply to any and all of the settlement award, including noneconomic damages for loss of consortium. Plaintiff argues that Budd's lien should not attach to payments to be made to decedent's children after they reach the age of eighteen. We find that Budd's lien should attach to all of the settlement damages, and that the circuit court erred by exempting noneconomic damages for loss of consortium.
Budd's claim for reimbursement of workers' compensation payments is based upon M.C.L. Sec. 418.827(5); M.S.A. Sec. 17.237(827)(5), which provides:
[184 MICHAPP 775] In an action to enforce the liability of a third party, the plaintiff may recover any amount which the employee or his dependents or personal representative would be entitled to recover in an action in tort. Any recovery against the third party for damages resulting from personal injuries or death only, after deducting expenses of recovery, shall first reimburse the employer or carrier for any amounts paid or payable under this act to date of recovery and the balance shall forthwith be paid to the employee or his dependents or personal representative and shall be treated as an advance payment by the employer on account of any future payments of compensation benefits. [Emphasis added.]
Where the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, the ordinary meaning of the language should be applied without further judicial interpretation. Lamotte v. Millers Nat'l Ins. Co., 180 Mich.App. 271, 277, 446 N.W.2d 632 (1989). The legislative purpose behind permitting third-party actions under M.C.L. Sec. 418.827; M.S.A. Sec. 17.237(827), is to provide employers or workers' compensation insurers a method of reimbursement for workers' compensation benefits paid to an injured or deceased employee where the injury or death was caused by the negligence of a third person. Hearns v. Ujkaj, 180 Mich.App. 363, 367, 446 N.W.2d 657 (1989).
In M.C.L. Sec. 418.827(5); M.S.A. Sec. 17.237(827)(5), the Legislature used the terms "any recovery" and "any amounts to which the employee or his dependents or personal representative would be entitled to recover in any action in tort." This language clearly indicates that no sort of damages would be exempt from attachment by the employer, so long as they arose from the death or injury of the employee.
Plaintiff argues that because the Workers' Disability Compensation Act does not provide for [184 MICHAPP 776] payment to dependent children over the age of eighteen, such payments made by the defendants pursuant to a structured settlement are not recoverable by Budd. We disagree. Our Supreme Court rejected a similar argument in Pelkey v. Elsea Realty & Investment Co., 394 Mich. 485, 232 N.W.2d 154 (1975), where the plaintiff argued that an employer should not receive credit against a recovery for pain and suffering when the Workers' Disability Compensation Act does not provide for payment for pain and suffering. The Court refused to bar an employer's lien against damages for pain and suffering on the grounds that those damages could not be recovered under the act. Pelkey, supra, at p. 492, 232 N.W.2d 154. See also Great American Ins. Co. v. Queen, 410 Mich. 73, 96, 300 N.W.2d 895 (1980). We find no language which would exempt certain types of damages from recovery. Reimbursement may be obtained under subsection 5 without regard to whether the third-party recovery is for the same element of loss compensated by the workers' compensation benefits. Great American, supra, at pp. 89, 97, 300 N.W.2d 895; Hearns, supra, 180 Mich.App. at p. 368, 446 N.W.2d 657.
Nor does the statute contain language exempting noneconomic damages to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Eddington v. Eppert Oil Co.
...individual damages for loss of consortium 5 because she received compensation benefits directly from the employer. 6 184 Mich.App. 771, 459 N.W.2d 103 (1990). This Court granted leave to appeal on July 19, 1991. 437 Mich. We must determine the extent to which the reimbursement provision of ......