Mills v. Department of Labor & Industries
| Decision Date | 18 January 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 30766-5-I,30766-5-I |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Marvin MILLS, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES, State of Washington, Respondent. |
Corrie Johnson Yackulic, James D. Hailey, Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, Seattle, for appellant.
Jeffrey Eric Boyer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Seattle, for respondent.
Marvin Mills appeals the trial court's summary judgment affirming the Department of Labor and Industries' (the Department) right to assert a lien against Mrs. Mills' recovery from third party tortfeasors for loss of consortium. We affirm.
The parties do not dispute the facts. Marvin Mills contracted lung disease as a result of occupational exposure. In 1983, Mr. Mills filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. The Department allowed the claim and began paying benefits. In 1986, the Mills filed a civil action pursuant to RCW 51.24.030 against several third parties, including the manufacturers and distributors of the automobile refinishing products to which he was exposed. In addition to Mr. Mills' claimed damages, the complaint sought damages for Mrs. Mills' loss of consortium. The parties settled the third party action for a lump sum of $145,000, but they did not allocate any portion of the settlement for Mrs. Mills' loss of consortium claim.
After the settlement, the Department asserted a lien of $68,632 against the Mills' entire recovery. The Mills appealed the Department's order to the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (the Board), arguing that Mrs. Mills' loss of consortium recovery was not subject to the Department's right of reimbursement. The Board determined that the Department could not assert its lien against any portion of a third party recovery awarded specifically to a worker's spouse for loss of consortium until the spouse began receiving benefits under the Industrial Insurance Act (the Act). However, because the settlement documents did not allocate a portion of the lump sum recovery for Mrs. Mills' loss of consortium, the Board concluded that the entire award was subject to the Department's lien. The trial court affirmed the Board's ruling on summary judgment. This appeal followed.
This court reviews the Board's findings of fact and conclusions of law de novo. Department of Labor & Indus. v. Fankhauser, 121 Wash.2d 304, 308, 849 P.2d 1209 (1993). Summary judgment may be granted when there is nogenuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c). When, as here, the parties do not dispute the facts and the only issue is a question of law, the standard of review is de novo. Fankhauser, 121 Wash.2d at 308, 849 P.2d 1209.
The Department first contends that RCW 51.24.060 gives it a right of reimbursement against Mrs. Mills' loss of consortium recovery. However, we do not reach this issue because we agree with the Board that the parties' failure to allocate a portion of the lump sum recovery to Mrs. Mills' loss of consortium claim in the settlement documents subjects the entire award to the Department's lien. 1
Mrs. Mills contends that the Department should designate a portion of the third party recovery as compensation for her loss of consortium. The Department strongly objects to having a role in allocating third party settlements, primarily because it believes its involvement would inappropriately enmesh the Department in the tort system and that its evaluation of such awards would be too costly. For the reasons explained below, we reject Mrs. Mills' contention.
First, the parties to the settlement have the ability to control the outcome simply by allocating a certain amount or percentage of the settlement to the spousal loss of consortium claim. We see no reason to require the Department to do something over which the parties had complete control. 2 Second, the Department's primary responsibility is to administer a social insurance system and to minimize the cost to the industrial insurance fund of doing so. See Downey v. Department of Labor & Indus., 65 Wash.App. 200, 206, 827 P.2d 1101, review granted, 119 Wash.2d 1018, 838 P.2d 690 (1992). Thus, the Legislature intended that the Department take an active role in third party suits to the extent necessary to reimburse the fund for benefits paid to beneficiaries. In re Estate of Kinsman, 44 Wash.App. 174, 178-79, 721 P.2d 981 (1986); In re Estate of Boettcher, 35 Wash.App. 178, 180-81, 665 P.2d 1378 (1983). If we ordered the Department to allocate recoveries, however, we would be creating another bureaucratic responsibility which would hinder rather than foster the Department's goal of minimizing the costs to the fund. Further, even if we believed it sound policy to mandate that the Department allocate recoveries in these types of cases, the worker may not agree with the Department's allocation. Thus, if we require the Department to allocate a certain amount or percentage to a spousal claim, it may well lead to additional litigation on an issue for which the Department has no responsibility in the first place. The cost of defending its administrative decisions concerning allocation would increase, not decrease, the cost to the fund. 3
Finally, Mrs. Mills asks this court to require the Department to allocate settlements for the benefit of nonbeneficiaries- , i.e., spouses who are not yet receiving benefits under the Act. This would not serve the legislative purpose of recouping benefits paid out of the state fund.
Mrs. Mills...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Litho Color, Inc. v. Pacific Employers Ins., 41294-9-I.
...parties bear the burden of allocating portions of lump sum settlements to specific causes of action. Mills v. Department of Labor and Industries, 72 Wash.App. 575, 577-78, 865 P.2d 41,review denied, 124 Wash.2d 1008, 879 P.2d 292 (1994). In this context, at least one circuit has held that w......
-
Jones v. City of Olympia
...not dispute the facts and the only issues remaining are questions of law, our standard of review is de novo. Mills v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 72 Wash.App. 575, 577, 865 P.2d 41,review denied,124 Wash.2d 1008, 879 P.2d 292 (1994). Like the superior court's review of an administrative appeal......
-
Duskin v. Carlson, 65998-2
...of the State's social insurance system and minimizing associated costs to the industrial insurance fund. Mills v. Department of Labor & Indus., 72 Wash.App. 575, 578, 865 P.2d 41 (1994). Certified mail is efficient and inexpensive. Service of actual notice would entail a far greater burden.......
-
Gersema v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...Flanigan, with its differentiated award,17 does not apply. ¶ 23 Instead, we apply and adopt the rationale of Mills v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 72 Wash.App. 575, 865 P.2d 41, review denied, 124 Wash.2d 1008, 879 P.2d 292 (1994), which involved a similar failure to differentiate a third-party......