Ward v. Mid-America Fittings, MID-AMERICA
| Decision Date | 23 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,MID-AMERICA,WD |
| Parties | Patricia WARD, Appellant, v.FITTINGS and State Treasurer, Respondents. 54689. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Elizabeth Diane Baker, Kansas City, for Appellant.
Donald Fritschie, Overland Park, Elaine Rose O'Hara, Kansas City, for Respondents.
Patricia Ward appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission to deny her application for workers' compensation. 1 The commission decided that Ward's We reverse.
In appealing the commission's decision to us, Ward first complains that the commission could not have ruled in favor of her employer, Mid-America Fittings, because it did not file its answer to her claim on time. She contends that the late filing should have caused the commission to deem her allegations admitted.
Ward filed her claim on January 4, 1996, with the Division of Workers' Compensation. The division acknowledged receiving Ward's claim on January 8 and mailed notice of it to Mid-America Fittings and to the State Treasurer, as custodian of the Second Injury Fund. The record does not establish when the division mailed notice of the claim, but the Treasurer filed his answer, dated January 8, on January 9. Mid-America filed its answer on February 13.
The division's regulation, 8 CSR 50-2.010 says:
(12) Upon receipt of a Claim for Compensation, the division will immediately forward a copy to the employer [or] insurer and within ... 15 ... days from the date of the division's acknowledgement of the claim, the employer [or] insurer shall file an answer to the claim[.] ...
(13) Unless the Answer to Claim for Compensation is filed within ... 15 ... days from the date the division acknowledges receipt of claim, the statements in the claim ... shall be taken as admitted; provided, that the division may extend the time for filing where good cause is shown, if requested to do so within the ... 15 ... day period.
In § 287.650.1, RSMo Cum.Supp.1997, the General Assembly authorized the division to promulgate this regulation, and it authorized the division "to strike pleadings and enter awards against any party or parties who fail or refuse to comply with [the division's] lawful orders."
Mid-America Fittings was required by Regulation 2.010(12) to file its answer within 15 days of the day on which the division acknowledged Ward's claim. The division acknowledged Ward's claim on January 8, so the deadline for Mid-America Fittings' answer, or request for more time, was January 23. Its failure to file by that deadline and its failure to request an extension by January 23 required the commission to deem Mid-America Fittings to have admitted the allegations in Ward's claim.
The commission did not respond to Ward's contention that Mid-America Fittings' untimely answer was an admission of her allegations. Its administrative law judge did, but he erroneously concluded that § 287.520, RSMo 1994, prohibited him from granting Ward's request. "I find [Ward's] request ... overruled since [Ward and] the Division of Workers' Compensation have not established notice sent to [Mid-America Fittings] by certified mail pursuant to 287.520."
This was an erroneous interpretation of § 287.520 which says, "Any notice required under this chapter shall be deemed to have been properly given and served when sent by registered or certified mail[.]" This statute has no application to the deadline set by Regulation 2.010(12). It applies only to notices required by the General Assembly in Chapter 287. Sending a copy of the claim to a claimant's employer is not required by Chapter 287. It is required by Regulation 2.010(12), and Regulation 2.010(19) provides that the division is to send the matter by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Labor Pros L.L.C.
...admitted the employee's factual allegations in the claim form that (1) the injury occurred, and (2) it occurred at work. 974 S.W.2d 586, 588 (Mo.App. W.D.1998). In Ward, the employee contended “that the late filing should have caused the commission to deem her allegations admitted.” Id. at ......
-
Anderson v. Veracity Research Co.
...arose out of or in the course of the claimant's employment." Id. The Commission upheld the denial of benefits. In Ward v. Mid-America Fittings, 974 S.W.2d 586 (Mo.App.1998), the court stated that the employer's failure to timely file its answer or seek an extension required the Commission t......
-
State ex rel. Taylor v. Meiners
...all facts contained in Taylor's claim for compensation are deemed admitted. 8 CSR 50-2.010(8)(B);1 see also Ward v. Mid-Am. Fittings, 974 S.W.2d 586, 587 (Mo.App. 1998). Subsequent to the filing of its answer, Labor Pro demanded that Taylor submit himself for an independent medical examinat......