Case Title: Joseph Banks, Respondent v. Clint Zweifel, Treasurer of the State of Missouri, Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Appellant

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC90131

State: missouri

Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Date: 2009-12-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
en banc 
 
 
 
Joseph Banks, 
 
 
 
)     
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Respondent,  
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
vs. 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
No. SC90131 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
Clint Zweifel,1 Treasurer of the State 
) 
of Missouri, Custodian of the Second 
) 
Injury Fund,  
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Appellant. 
 
 
) 
 
Appeal from a Decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission 
 
Opinion issued December 1, 2009. 
 
 
The Second Injury Fund (fund) appeals from a decision of the Labor and Industrial 
Relations Commission affirming a decision awarding Joseph Banks permanent total 
disability benefits.  The decision is affirmed.  
FACTS 
 
Joseph Banks was injured in a work-related automobile accident.  Banks sued the 
other driver and settled that case for $100,000.  After deducting attorney’s fees and costs, 
Banks was left with $54,903.48 in his trust account.  Subsequently, an administrative law 
judge (ALJ) determined that Banks was entitled to permanent total disability benefits 
                                             
 
1 Since this case was filed, a new state treasurer has taken office.  His name is substituted 
as provided in Rule 52.13(d). 
from the fund.  The ALJ did not award the fund a subrogation interest in Banks’ recovery 
from the other driver.  The commission affirmed the decision.  The fund appeals.  
ANALYSIS 
The fund asserts that it has a subrogation interest in Banks’ third-party recovery.  
The fund is correct.  Although there is no statutory right to subrogation, the fund has an 
equitable, common-law subrogation interest in a claimant’s recovery from a third party.  
Cole v.  Morris, 409 S.W.2d 668, 671 (Mo. 1966).   
The issue then becomes whether the commission or the circuit court has authority 
to determine the fund’s subrogation interest.  In Cole, the Court remanded the case to the 
circuit court but directed the court to return the case to the commission for entry of an 
order.  Id. at 672.  Cole is incorrect on this point.  The commission is an administrative 
tribunal with authority to determine questions of fact and to apply provisions of law 
under the workers’ compensation act.  Farmer v. Barlow Truck Lines, Inc., 979 S.W.2d 
169, 170 (Mo. banc 1998).  The workers’ compensation act does not vest the commission 
with the judicial power to “expound any principle of law or equity or to enforce its 
orders.”  Oren v.  Swift & Co., 51 S.W.2d 59, 61 (Mo. 1932).  The fund’s common-law 
subrogation interest does not arise under the workers’ compensation act.  Consequently, 
the commission has no authority to determine the fund’s common-law subrogation 
interest in Banks’ third-party recovery.  The circuit court is the proper venue for the fund 
to assert a subrogation interest.  
 
2
The decision is affirmed.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
______________________________________  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Richard B. Teitelman, Judge  
  
 
All concur. 
 
3