Roth v. J.J. Brouk & Co.
| Decision Date | 15 November 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 96708.,ED 96708. |
| Citation | 356 S.W.3d 786 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Luke ROTH (deceased) and Mary Roth, et al., Respondents, v. J.J. BROUK & COMPANY CORP. and Amerisure Insurance Co., Appellants. |
356 S.W.3d 786
Luke ROTH (deceased) and Mary Roth, et al., Respondents,
v.
J.J. BROUK & COMPANY CORP. and Amerisure Insurance Co., Appellants.
No. ED 96708.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Nov. 15, 2011.
[356 S.W.3d 786]
Mary Anne Lindsey, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
[356 S.W.3d 787]
Christina Nielsen, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
J.J. Brouk & Company (Employer) and its insurer appeal the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying their motion to approve a structured settlement with the family of deceased employee Luke Roth.1 We reverse and remand.
Luke Roth was exposed to asbestos while working for Employer between 1972 and 1976. He later developed lung cancer and died in 2002. His widow, Mary, filed the underlying worker's compensation claim alleging that the asbestos exposure caused Roth's death. The case was fully litigated, voluminous evidence was presented, and in 2004 the Commission awarded death benefits to Mary and the couple's three children in accordance with section 287.240 of the workers' compensation act.
After a time, uncertainty arose as to the children's continuing dependency status and Mary's future marital status. So, in 2011, the parties executed a structured settlement agreement, permitted by section 287.241, by which they intended to supersede the Commission's 2004 award. The settlement agreement sought to eliminate uncertainty and instead provided for a lump-sum payment and future periodic payments as specifically set forth therein. Mary executed the agreement on behalf of herself and the children, and Appellants submitted it to the Commission for approval as required by section 287.390.1 and 8 C.S.R. 20–3.010(3)–(5).
The Commission summarily dismissed Appellants' request for lack of jurisdiction, stating only that “The Workers' Compensation Law— § 287.241 in particular—does not grant the Commission the authority to approve a structured settlement.” Appellants contend that the Commission erred as a matter of law in that its jurisdiction over the case continues, and its authority to approve structured settlements lies in section 287.390.
Our standard of review is set forth in section 287.495.1 RSMo 2000. An appellate court shall only review questions of law and may modify, reverse, remand or set aside an award only if the Commission acted without or in excess of its powers, the award was procured by fraud, the facts found by the Commission do not support the award, or there was not sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the award. Id. Appellants present a question of law, so our review is de novo. Id.; Grubbs v. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund, 298 S.W.3d 907, 910 (Mo.App.2009).
It is well settled that “an administrative agency has only such jurisdiction or authority as may be granted by the legislature.” Carr v. N. Kansas City Beverage Co., 49 S.W.3d 205, 207 (Mo.App. W.D.2001). The Commission is an administrative agency created by statute and, as such, possesses no more authority than that granted by statute. Id.; §§ 287.060 and 287.110 RSMo 2005. “If the Commission
[356 S.W.3d 788]
lacks statutory power, it is without subject matter jurisdiction.” Id.2
Section 287.240 provides the general...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peer v. Mo. Bd. of Pharmacy
..."In a non-administrative context, jurisdiction and authority are two separate and distinct inquiries." Roth v. J.J. Brouk & Co., 356 S.W.3d 786, 788 n.2 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (citing J.C.W. ex rel. Webb v. Wyciskalla, 275 S.W.3d 249 (Mo. banc 2009)). "A circuit court's subject matter jurisdi......
-
M.A.H. v. Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
...creature of statute, an administrative agency has only such jurisdiction as may be granted by the legislature. Roth v. J.J. Brouk & Co., 356 S.W.3d 786, 787 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011). Here, section 208.080 provides that an applicant denied benefits or services may appeal by requesting an adminis......
-
M.A.H. v. Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
...creature of statute, an administrative agency has only such jurisdiction as may be granted by the legislature. Roth v. J.J. Brouk & Co., 356 S.W.3d 786, 787 (Mo.App. E.D.2011). Here, section 208.080 provides that an applicant denied benefits or services may appeal by requesting an administr......
-
Treasurer of the Mo. - Custodian of the Second Injury Fund v. Mickelberry
...Tetzner v. State, Dep't of Soc. Servs., Family Support Div. , 446 S.W.3d 689, 692 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) ; Roth v. J.J. Brouk & Co.¸ 356 S.W.3d 786, 787-88 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011). However, in Cass County v. Director of Revenue , 550 S.W.3d 70, 73-74 (Mo. banc 2018), the Missouri Supreme Court c......