Opinion ID: 6108979
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Proper Claimants

Text: All parties raise concerns as to the propriety of the claimants in this case. Insurer argues the Commission improperly allowed the substitution of Ms. Murphy as a claimant because she failed to file a formal suggestion of Mr. Casey's death or a written motion for substitution. Ms. Murphy argues the Commission erred by mistakenly omitting Mr. Casey's eight adult children from the final award of compensation benefits. Employer, meanwhile, posits the statute improperly extends liability benefits to non-dependent children. The substitution of Ms. Murphy for Mr. Casey was not improper. If a workers' compensation claimant dies while the claim is pending, the same shall not abate, but on notice to the parties may be revived and proceed in favor of the successor to the rights or against the personal representative of the party liable, in like manner as in civil actions. Section 287.580. In civil actions, substitution is achieved by filing a suggestion of death and then, within 90 days, filing a motion to substitute. Rule 52.13. But [a]s a general proposition, the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure, including its pleading requirements, do not apply to workers' compensation actions, unless the statute implicates the application of a specific rule. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs v. Boresi , 396 S.W.3d 356 , 363 (Mo. banc 2013) (internal quotation omitted). Chapter 287 has minimal requirements for its pleadings or motions. Id. at 362 . Workers' compensation proceedings are simple, informal, and summary. Section 287.550. Ms. Murphy filed an amended claim on October 28, 2015, naming herself and Mr. Casey's children as claimants and notifying the other parties by letter of her intent to proceed. Because the amended claim notified all other parties of the original claimant's death, it was a de facto suggestion of  death. Indeed, Insurer and Employer were clearly on notice of the substitution, as both parties filed answers to the amended claim. Moreover, Ms. Murphy made an oral motion for substitution of parties at the outset of the ALJ hearing on January 7, 2016-within the 90-day window for such a motion under Rule 52.13. Though the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure are not mandatory in workers' compensation actions, the substitution of Ms. Murphy substantially tracked the procedural rules and was in like manner as in civil actions as required under section 287.580. The procedure here was sufficient to properly substitute Ms. Murphy for Mr. Casey. In her amended claim, Ms. Murphy listed Mr. Casey's eight adult children as eligible claimants for the workers' compensation benefits, but the Commission excluded the children from the award. Based on the Commission's written decision, Ms. Murphy infers this exclusion was inadvertent. The Commission stated in a footnote: the amended claim for compensation, filed October 28, 2015, did not identify employee's children as dependents or claimants, nor is there any motion on the record before us to include these individuals as parties to any award in this matter. For this reason, we have identified Dolores Murphy as the sole claimant herein. Ms. Murphy concludes the Commission likely overlooked a separate third document attached to the amended claim, which listed all eight individuals as eligible claimants. 7 Ms. Murphy requests this Court add the children to the Commission's award or, in the alternative, remand the case to the Commission so it can correct the error. Employer argues the amended statute improperly allows Mr. Casey's non-dependent children to recover benefits. But there is no limit on a child's recovery based upon dependency status in the amended section 287.200, unlike other workers' compensation provisions. 8 This section provides, Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter to the contrary, if an employee dies before the enhanced mesothelioma benefits are paid, the benefits are payable to the employee's spouse or children.  Section 287.200.4(5) (emphasis added). This Court gives the words of a statute their plain and ordinary meaning. Mantia v. Mo. Dep't of Transp. , 529 S.W.3d 804 , 809 (Mo. banc 2017). Ms. Murphy used Box 21-Additional Statements-to refer to the attached sheet on which she set out the eight surviving children who were also making a claim for benefits. Mr. Casey's children are not precluded from recovering benefits, as they were properly delineated as claimants. Because section 287.200.4 does not limit recovery to dependent children, but allows all children to recover, and because the children were properly listed on the amended claim, they should have been included in the final award. Although the Commission's omission of the children was inadvertent, it was nevertheless in error. This Court modifies the Commission's decision to include Mr. Casey's children in the final award. Rule 84.14.