The wife and two children of a disabled worker who later died cannot collect permanent disability benefits that had previously been awarded to him because they were not named as dependents when he suffered a work injury in 2005, a Missouri appellate court ruled Tuesday.
Nancy Lawrence and her children appealed to the State Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's earlier denial of a proposal to be reimbursed as parties to Ronald A. Lawrence's workers' compensation claim following his death in 2019 that was not linked to his workplace injury pursuant to documents in Ronald A. Lawrence, II; Nancy Lawrence, Deanna Lawrence and Mayme Lawrence v. Treasurer of the Missouri State Guardians of the Second Damage Fund, filed in the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District of Kansas City, Missouri.
The Respondents claimed that they were Mr. Lawrence depended and thus was entitled to receive the permanent disability benefits awarded to him against the Second Injury Fund in 201
In the affirmative, the Court of Appeal ruled that "neither the Commission nor this Court has the power to substantially alter a final pay dividend for workers specified years earlier to make new actual findings of dependency not included in the original award. "
" In this case, Nancy and Barn's status as relatives of Ronald were not established at the time of his injury in the final award, "the decision states. "Thus, the Commission correctly denied their proposal to replace it."
One of the three appealed judges disagreed, and wrote that the court records show that Mr. Lawrence had been married with children and that the dependency status was "not questioned", elaborating the 25-year marriage with his wife and medical records showing that he had children in his injury.
"As I have come to the conclusion that the Commission erred in finding that the statutory dependency status was not sufficiently established in the Final Award granting him permanent total disability benefits supported by the post of Mr. Lawrence & # 39; s Second Injury Fund -the hearing, I would turn and be detained for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, "wrote the dissenting judge.