State ex rel. Consumer Adjustment Co., Inc. v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 30 July 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 59884,59884 |
| Citation | 815 S.W.2d 84 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri ex rel. CONSUMER ADJUSTMENT COMPANY, INC., et al., Relators, v. The Honorable John L. ANDERSON, Respondent. |
Lawrence J. Altman, Clayton, for relators.
Deeba Sauter Herd, St. Louis, for respondent.
Relator Consumer Adjustment Company 1 seeks a writ of prohibition compelling respondent judge to sustain Consumer's motion to dismiss the underlying petition. The underlying petition alleges plaintiff, an employee of Consumer, was assaulted by a co-worker while at work in Consumer's office. Consumer contends plaintiff's action lacks subject matter jurisdiction, because it falls under the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Law, § 287.120.2. 2 We agree. Our preliminary order is made permanent.
In Count I of the underlying action, plaintiff pleads an assault claim against his co-worker, Varady. Count II is directed against Consumer, while Counts III and IV are directed at Consumer's manager.
Count II alleges that "while at work for [Consumer], Plaintiff was assaulted by a co-worker, Defendant Varady, who dragged Plaintiff out of the office ..., violently struck him, knocked him unconscious, and attempted to throw him into a trash dumpster, causing Plaintiff to sustain serious and disabling injuries and damages...." Further, plaintiff alleged, "[T]he assault was not an accident in the course of employment of either Plaintiff or Defendant Varady, but rather arose out of the purely personal association of Plaintiff and Defendant Varady."
Consumer filed a motion to dismiss. Citing § 287.120.2, Consumer contends Chapter 287 provides "the exclusive remedy for work related injuries." Hence, Consumer alleges the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Further, Consumer contends plaintiff had filed a workers' compensation claim seeking benefits for the same incident; attached to the motion was a copy of the claim.
On the other hand, plaintiff contends the assault was of a "private nature." He points out his petition alleged that "the assault was not an accident in the course of his employment." This averment, he contends, removes his claim from coverage under workers' compensation and gives the circuit court jurisdiction.
The respondent judge overruled the motion to dismiss. In so doing, the judge stayed the underlying action "until such time as plaintiff dismisses his pending claim before the Division of Workers' Compensation ... against [Consumer]." Thereafter, plaintiff dismissed his workers' compensation claim and Consumer sought this writ.
Prohibition is the proper remedy to prevent a court from acting in excess of its jurisdiction. State ex rel. City of St. Louis v. Kinder, 698 S.W.2d 4, 6 (Mo. banc 1985).
Plaintiff contends his action can be brought in circuit court because assaults "committed in the course of private quarrels that are purely personal to the participants" are not compensable under Missouri's workers' compensation law. See Person v. Scullin Steel Co., 523 S.W.2d 801, 803-04 (Mo. banc 1975). However, the question before us is not whether plaintiff's injuries are compensable under workers' compensation.
Instead, the issue is whether the trial court had jurisdiction over plaintiff's action absent a Labor and Industrial Relations Commission determination that plaintiff's injuries were not compensable under workers' compensation.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction determines whether the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission. When that doctrine is found to apply, the circuit court cannot "decide a controversy involving a question within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal until after that tribunal has rendered its decision." Killian v. J & J Installers, Inc., 802 S.W.2d 158, 160 (Mo. banc 1991).
The primary jurisdiction doctrine applies to the underlying action here. Whether plaintiff's on-the-job assault arose out of and in the course of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. KCP & L Greater Missouri Operations Co. v. Cook
...claims that involve an employment relationship and an allegation of a work-related injury. See also State ex rel. Consumer Adjustment Co., Inc. v. Anderson, 815 S.W.2d 84, 86 (Mo.App.1991) (“[P]laintiff cannot proceed with the underlying action [in the circuit court] until the Commission ha......
-
Cooper v. Chrysler Grp., LLC
...Harris v. Westin Management Co. East, 230 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Mo. banc 2007); Killian, 802 S.W.2d at 160; State ex rel. Consumer Adj. v. Anderson, 815 S.W.2d 84, 86 (Mo.App.1991); Jones, 709 S.W.2d at 115, and whether an employee's injury resulted from an accident or an intentional act. Killian, 8......
-
Yount v. Davis
...that, under Killian, the trial court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. See also State ex rel. Consumer Adj. Co. v. Anderson, 815 S.W.2d 84 (Mo.App.1991). The trial court's order of dismissal, on the basis that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, has no res ju......
-
State ex rel. Mann v. Conklin
...the Division to determine whether Mann was acting within the course and scope of his employment. State ex rel. Consumer Adjustment Co., Inc. v. Anderson, 815 S.W.2d 84, 86(Mo.App. E.D.1991). For the purposes of deciding whether to grant this writ, we assume the Division has done Therefore, ......