Sodipo v. University Copiers

• Decision Date: 13 June 2000
• Citation: 23 S.W.3d 807
• Parties: (Mo.App. E.D. 2000) . Adetayo Sodipo, Claimant/Respondent, v. University Copiers, etc., Employer, and Robert Holden, Treasurer of the State of Missouri, Additional Party/Appellant. Case Number: ED76650 Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Handdown Date: 0
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

23 S.W.3d 807 (Mo.App. E.D. 2000)

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Adetayo Sodipo, Claimant/Respondent, v. University Copiers, etc., Employer, and Robert Holden, Treasurer of the State of Missouri, Additional Party/Appellant.

Case Number: ED76650

Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District

Handdown Date: 06/13/2000

Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission

Counsel for Appellant: Paul K. Petraborg

Counsel for Respondent: Scott L. Bernstein

Opinion Summary: The Second Injury Fund appeals the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's affirmance of an award by the Administrative Law Judge for Adetayo Sodipo on a jurisdictional issue and increase in the claimant's monetary award.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Division Three holds: The Commission erred in concluding that any defense of lack of jurisdiction the Second Injury Fund may have had pursuant to section 287.090.1(2) was waived when it was not raised before the ALJ.

Opinion Author: Lawrence E. Mooney, Judge

Opinion Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED. Teitelman, P.J., and Ahrens, J., concur.

Opinion:

Opinion modified by Court's own motion on June 27, 2000. This substitution does not constitute a new opinion.

The Second Injury Fund ("SIF") appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's ("Commission") affirmance of an award by the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") for Adetayo Sodipo ("Claimant") on a jurisdictional issue and increase in Claimant's monetary award. On appeal, the SIF contends that the Commission erred in: (1) considering the merits of the case because the Commission lacked jurisdiction over this matter in that the workers' compensation law does not apply when an employee and employer are related within the third degree of affinity or consanguinity; (2) ordering the SIF to pay $3,757.78 in medical expenses already paid by a private insurer; (3) ordering the SIF to reimburse Claimant for his medical expenses given that section 287.220.5 RSMo. (1994)¹ requires that payment be made directly to the medical providers; and (4) awarding attorneys' fees to be paid by the SIF, which is not authorized by section 287.220.5. We reverse and remand.

Facts

Claimant was injured on February 17, 1995, when he was struck in the eye by a customer while working at University Copiers. As a result of the assault, Claimant suffered extensive right eye injury and required both eye and cheekbone reconstruction. Claimant subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim against Adeyemo Sodipo d/b/a/ University Copiers ("Employer"), and both parties agreed at the hearing before the ALJ that they were operating under the provisions of the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law. Although Employer thought he was covered by a valid workers' compensation policy on the date of the injury, he subsequently learned that his business was not insured by such policy. As a result, Claimant filed a workers' compensation claim against the SIF pursuant to section 287.220.5 for his medical expenses. During the hearing before the ALJ, Adeyemo testified that he was both the sole owner of University Copiers and Claimant's older brother. The ALJ issued an award against the SIF for $7,640.86 in outstanding medical expenses, subject to a 25% attorneys' fee.

The SIF requested review by the Commission of the ALJ's award on the jurisdictional issue, contending that the workers' compensation law does not apply because Claimant and Employer are related within the third degree of affinity or consanguinity. Claimant also appealed the ALJ's decision, alleging that his outstanding medical bills totaled $13,689.86, rather than $7,640.86. The Commission affirmed the award as to the jurisdictional issue and the 25% lien for legal fees, but increased the monetary amount of Claimant's award to $17,497.64. This amount included $13,689.86 in unpaid medical expenses, and $3,757.78 in medical expenses already paid by Claimant's private insurer. The SIF appeals from the Commission's decision.

Analysis

This appeal raises four claims of error based upon the Commission's allegedly incorrect interpretation of law in rendering its decision against the SIF. Appeals from awards made by the Commission are governed by section 287.495, which states in pertinent part that "[t]he court, on appeal, shall review only questions of law and may modify, reverse, remand for rehearing or set aside the award . . . [where] there was not sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the award."

The SIF first contends that the Commission erred in considering the merits of this case because it lacked jurisdiction over this matter in that the workers' compensation law does not apply pursuant to section 287.090.1(2) when the employee and employer are related within the third degree of affinity or consanguinity. We agree.

In pertinent part, section 287.090.1 provides that the workers' compensation law "shall not apply to . . . (2) Any worker who is a member of the employer's family within the third degree of affinity or consanguinity . . ."² The SIF did not raise the family exemption issue before the ALJ, but instead argued it for the first time before the Commission. The Commission then determined that the SIF may have had an affirmative defense pursuant to section 287.090.1, but such defense was waived when not properly raised before the ALJ.

Jurisdiction has many meanings depending on the context used. Subject-matter jurisdiction is defined as the authority to determine the general question involved; if a petition states a claim belonging to a general class over which the authority of the court extends, that court has subject-matter jurisdiction. In re Marriage of Neal, 699 S.W.2d 92, 94 (Mo.App. S.D. 1985), citing In re Marriage of Panich, 672 S.W.2d 718, 720 (Mo.App. S.D. 1984). However, subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or agreement of the parties, by appearance or answer, or by estoppel. State Tax Comm'n v. Admin. Hearing Comm'n, 641 S.W.2d 69, 72 (Mo. banc 1982); Rule 55.27(g)(3).

In rendering its decision, the Commission relied solely upon Schneider v. Union Electric Co. to conclude that the family exemption was an affirmative defense rather than an exception to the Commission's subject-matter jurisdiction. 805 S.W.2d 222 (Mo.App. W.D. 1991). In Schneider, the plaintiff was injured when his foot slipped off the rung of a ladder, which connected the roofs of two Union Electric buildings. Union Electric argued for the first time on appeal that because the plaintiff was its statutory employee, his recovery was relegated to the workers' compensation remedy. Id., at 224. The Western District examined whether the trial court had actual subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim, because if it did not, Union Electric may raise the issue for the first time on appeal.

The Western District held that Union Electric's failure to plead and prove before the trial court that the plaintiff was its statutory employee and that his claim was...