The Law Office of Kurt H King

December 28, 2011

Missouri Workers’ Compensation Law on Claims by Health Care Providers

Under Missouri Workers’ Compensation law the employer or its work comp insurer are supposed to pay for medical treatment necessary to care for the employee’s injury.  However, when the employee’s work comp claim settles for a final lump sum, part of the settlement paid to the employee may include an amount for any unpaid medical expenses owed to health care providers who have not yet been paid.  Then the burden shifts to the employee to pay any outstanding medical bills.  The question is how much does the employee have to pay the health care provider–the full amount of the bill or the much smaller percentage (often 20% or less) that an insurance company like Blue Cross Blue Shield would have to pay.

A few years ago, Missouri law changed section 287.140 of the Revised Missouri Statutes to clearly state in subsection 3 that no health care provider may charge the employee more than the amount that would have been due from a health insurance company or if the patient was a private pay.  Thus, the employee in these situations need pay no more than the percentage that the insurance carrier would have paid, saving perhaps 80% or more off the full amount that a health care provider may bill without knowing of the law or in hopes of obtaining full payment. 

Kurt H. King

Law Office of Kurt H. King, 20 E. Franklin, Liberty, Clay County, Missouri 64068

816.781.6000

www.kurthking.com

Missouri Workers’ Compensation Law, Personal Injury, Lender Liability Litigation, Divorce & Modification, Child Custody & Support, Family Law, Bankruptcy

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy & Walking Away From A Home Loan

Filed under: Bankruptcy,Litigation — kurthking @ 10:22 am
Tags: , , ,

Folks who have lost their job or otherwise fallen on hard times sometimes lack the money to make their home loan payments.   Too, the value of the residence may have fallen, leaving the home owner under water with a loan balance that far exceeds the value of the property.  In situations like these, the owner may consider walking away from the property and defaulting on the loan.

Does the bank/lender sell the home at the foreclosure sale and mark the loan Paid In Full so the borrower can move on and start afresh?  Not hardly. 

Typically, there is a balance due from the borrowers after the sale that is called a deficiency.  The lender can sue the borrowers and garnish their wages or otherwise try to collect the deficiency.  At the least, the default shows up on a credit report and makes it difficult or impossible for the borrowers to get loans in the future so long as the deficiency remains on their record.

Some folks qualify to file bankruptcy, often under Chapter 7 to wipe out debts and start over or under Chapter 13 where a payment plan is ordered requiring the debtor/borrower to pay part of the debts over several years.

For those borrowers who cannot qualify for relief in bankruptcy court, walking away from a home loan may be a nightmare with no end in sight.  Don’t make the mistake of going that route without seeing if there are any other options.

Kurt H. King

Law Office of Kurt H. King, 20 E. Franklin, Liberty, Clay County, Missouri 64068

816.781.6000

www.kurthking.com

Bankruptcy, Litigation, Personal Injury, Missouri Workers’ Compensation, Family Law

 

Late Payment of Compensation Checks–Missouri Workers’ Compensation Claims

In some cases, a work comp insurance company drags its feet or refuses to pay the injured employee the “weekly” compensation checks for Temporay Disability due the employee while recovering from or receiving medical treatment for the injury.   This is extremely frustrating for the injured employee now trying to make ends meet on work comp which pays no more than 2/3 of the worker’s wages and even that amount is capped so that employees making good money do not receive the full 2/3 amount.

Missouri work comp law is not a big help.  Section 287.160 merely provides in subsection 3 that the payments are to be made as frequently as the employee was paid at the time of injury, but at least bi-weekly.   Unfortunately, the penalty for late payment is only 10% simple annual interest AFTER THE PAYMENT IS MORE THAN 30 DAYS LATE.

Too, in rare cases an unreasonable refusal to pay the compensation due results in an award of attorneys fees/costs to the employee.  Don’t hold your breath expecting one of these attorney fees awards.

Kurt H. King

Law Office of Kurt H. King, 20 E. Franklin, Liberty, Clay County, Missouri 64068

816.781.6000

www.kurthking.com

Missouri Workers’  Compensation, Personal Injury Law, Bankruptcy, Child Custody & Support, Divorce & Modification, Family Law

December 22, 2011

Spinal Cement Surgery in Missouri Personal Injury and Workers’ Compensation Cases

Received a call last week from a guy with a Missouri Workers’ Compensation claim who went under the knife to have a vertebroplasty where cement is injected into a fracture to hold it together until the bone rebuilds.   The work comp insurance carrier already offered this person a settlement and the call was to find out if the offer was in the ball park, which it was not.  This person decided to try to renegotiate a higher settlement on his own after talking to me about number in hopes of having a decent net settlement without having to pay the 25% contingency fee to me and at least a $1,000 for another doctor to examine him and give the higher rating the injury deserved.  I don’t yet know how he fared on his negotiations.

After this phone call, I looked on-line at spinal surgery using cement and found that there are significant risks associated with this cement and allegations of improper and unapproved testing which may have resulted in patient deaths.  One risk is said to be that if the cement gets into the blood stream and reaches the heart, large drops in blood pressure occur.  Another concern is reported as that using cement to strengthen one fractured vertebrae could cause more fractures in weaker bones.  Maybe most strikingly, reports state that this cement surgery is no better than not having the surgery at all. 

All this raised the concern about what happens to the cement over time.  Is it absorbed into the body and how does that happen without it mixing with spinal fluid or the bloodstream which will eventually pass it though the heart?  And what damage results to the heart and its delicate valves due to the passage of rough foreign matter like cement?  Did the surgeon fully discuss all these risks and dangers with the patient as well as let the patient know of the studies that are said to indicate that the cement surgery may be no better than no surgery at all?   If not, the doctor may not have obtained the patient’s informed consent as required by law.

All in all, there seems to be considerable food for thought for anyone looking at cement surgery or such health problems afterwards.

Kurt H. King

Law Office of Kurt H. King, 20 E. Franklin, Liberty, Clay County, Missouri 64068

816.781.6000

www.kurthking.com

Personal Inury, Missouri Workers’ Compensation, Family Law, Child Custody & Support, Divorce & Modification, Bankruptcy

December 20, 2011

Permanent Total Disability and Death from Other Causes in Missouri Workers’ Compensation Claims/Cases

Missouri courts are making law on what happens when a Permanently Totally Disabled (PTD) worker dies from other causes before his/her claim reaches final resolution.

The key statutes are 287.020.1, 287.200, and 287.230 which Missouri lawmakers amended effective June 26, 2008, in order to change the result of Missouri Supreme Court’s January 9, 2007, decision in the case of Schoemehl v. Treasurer of the State of Missouri, 217 S.W.3d 900.

Schoemehl holds that the definition of an “employee” includes his dependents as stated in 287.020.1.  Therefore, the dependents of an PTD employee who dies from other causes shall receive the compensation due the deceased employee for as long as the DEPENDENT shall live.

However, Missouri law makers overrode Schoemehl by revising the above statutes to provide that for purposes of PTD compensation under 287.200, the term “employee” does NOT include dependents.  But this change in law has been held to be substantive and thus the changes cannot be retro-respectively applied to claims that were filed (accrued?) prior to June 26, 2008–the effective date of the lawmakers’ statutory changes.

So a PTD claim that is pending–why not include also injuries sustained or reported but no claim yet filed?–and not yet finally decided during the “Schoemehl Window”–January 9, 2007 to June 26, 2008--is entitled to much more workers’ compensation that if your claim is filed [accrued?] after June 26, 2008.  See the recent decision of the Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals in Goad v. Treasurer of the State of Missouri, dated November 22, 2011 (WD72820).

Another thought is that it may be wise to list all the dependents on claims for PTD so that the workers’ compensation judge may make orders that in the event of the death from other causes of a PTD worker with a claim inside the Schoemehl window that the post-death PTD compensation shall be paid to the dependents for their lifetimes.  Such an order was approved in Tilly v. USF Holland Inc., 325 S.W.3d 487 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2010).

It is important to keep in mind that the law is far different for workers’ compensation Death claims where the injured worker dies from his injury, or where the worker is only Permanently Partially Disabled.  So disregard the above if the work injury caused the worker’s death or permanent total disability is not present.

Kurt H. King

Law Office of Kurt H. King, 20 E. Franklin, Liberty, Clay County, Missouri 64068

816.781.6000

www.kurthking.com

Bankruptcy, Child Custody & Support, Divorce & Modification, Family Law

Personal Injury, Missouri Workers’ Compensation

December 19, 2011

No Credit For Child’s Social Security Disability $ If Due To Disability of Custodial Parent

Filed under: Custody,Divorce,Family Law,Support — kurthking @ 10:24 pm
Tags: , , ,

Possible scenario:  Mom has  residential physical custody of a child who receives Social Security Disability each month due to the disability of the mother who cannot work.  Father wants a credit for the amount of the child’s disability checks in order to reduce his child support obligation under Missouri law. 

Answer: No reduction for father becasue the disability money comes to the child because of the disability of the parent with custody–mom. 

But the answer may be yes if the father was the disabled person and the child received disability payments due to the non-custodial father’s disability.

The Missouri case on point is Gerlach v. Adair, 211 S.W.3d 663, 667 hn.8 (Mo. Ct. App. W. D. 2007).

However, there is another angle in through the back door for the non-custodial father to try.   That is that the Missouri Child Support Guidelines are just guidelines from which the court may deviate for good reason.  And one factor which could cause a deviation is that the court is supposed to consider the child’s income in deciding how much child support to order. 

One practical approach to this scenario was experienced in a Platte County, Missouri, court where the judge added the amount of money the child received each month due to the custodial mother’s disability, back into the total income of the mother which resulted in a small but fair discount in the amount of child support that the court ordered the non-custodial, non-disabled father to pay.

Kurt H. King

Law Office of Kurt H. King, 20 E. Franklin, Liberty, Clay County, Missouri 64068

www.kurthking.com

Bankruptcy, Child Custody & Support, Divorce & Modification, Family Law, Personal Injury, Missouri Workers’ Compensation

Public School Teacher’s Retirement in Missouri Divorce Cases

Filed under: Divorce,Family Law — kurthking @ 9:56 pm
Tags: , , ,

Many Missouri divorce cases rule that the retirement of public school teachers in this state is not marital property to be divided in a divorce case.   Rather, such retirement constitutes non-marital property of the teaching spouse and can only be set aside in full to that spouse.

The Missouri law which supports these court rulings is section 169.572, the second subsection of which provides–“a court of competent jurisdiction may divide the [retirement]  . . . between the parties to any action for dissolution of marriage, to the same extent and in the same manner the court may divide any federal old-age, survivors or disability insurance benefit of the parties pursuant to the federal Social Security Act.”   Here you need to know that subsection 1 of section 169.572 bars all Missouri courts from dividing any such Social Security benefits.   Bottomline:  Missouri public teacher retirement is not to be divided by any divorce court.

There is one small caveat:  A Missouri divorce court is supposed to consider the amount of non-marital property [including public teacher retirement] in deciding how to divide the marital property.  For example,  if one spouse was rich before the marriage,  the court may consider that non-marital property and maybe give the “poorer” spouse more of the marital proeprty.

Kurt H. King

Law Office of Kurt H. King, 20 E. Franklin, Liberty, Clay County, Missouri 64068

www.kurthking.com

Bankruptcy, Child Custody & Support, Divorce & Modification, Family Law, Personal Injury, Missouri Workers’ Compensation

Is Social Security Disability a Marital Asset in Missouri Divorces

Filed under: Divorce,Family Law — kurthking @ 9:34 pm
Tags: , , ,

A husband in a Missouri divorce case has a claim for Social Security disability.   Is the wife entitled to half of it as marital property? 

Answer:  No.  Missouri statute 169.572 prohibits state courts from dividing social security benefits in divorce cases.   That law plainly says–“No court shall divide or set aside any federal old-age, survivors or disability insurance benefit provided to any party pursuant to the federal Social Security Act . . ., in any proceeding for dissolution of marriage.”

See also the decision of the Missouri Court of Appeals in the case of Litz v. Litz, 288 S.W.3d 753 (2009), which followed section 169.573 in holding that Social Security disability benefits are NOT marital property.

Kurt H. King

The Law Office of Kurt H. King, 20 E. Franklin, Liberty, Clay County, Missouri

816.781.6000

www.kurthking.com

Bankruptcy, Child Custody & Support, Divorce & Modification, Family Law, Personal Injury,Missouri Workers’ Compensation

November 10, 2011

Divorce and Ford Motor Company QDRO’s in Missouri

Filed under: Divorce,Family Law — kurthking @ 5:04 pm
Tags: , ,

Ford’s National Employee Services Center mailing address is now:

PO Box 199721, Dallas, TX 75219-9721

Phone:  800.248.4444

Pension, TESPHE, QDRO, and other information may be obtained from the Center.

 

Kurt H. King

Law Office of Kurt H. King, 816.781.6000, 20 E. Franklin, Liberty, Clay County, Missouri 64068;

www.kurthking.com

Bankruptcy, Child Custody & Support, Divorce & Modification, Family Law

Personal Injury, Missouri Workers’ Compensation

Divorce and Orders regarding Life Insurance for the benefit of the Children of the Marriage in Missouri

Filed under: Divorce,Family Law,Support — kurthking @ 4:47 pm
Tags: , , ,

The question comes up about whether the court the non-custodial parent who is ordered to pay child support in a divorce case in Missouri can legally be ordered to maintain life insurance coverage on his/her life to pay out to or for the minor children of the marriage should the non-custodial parent die. 

Right now, and the law may change on this in the future, the answer is that the court can make that order in a judgment dissolving the marriage IF the parties so agree in a settlement agreement which is part of the judgment and the parties ordered to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement.  See Wheeler v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 999 S.W.2d 279, 287-88, hns. 9-11 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1999); and, Weiss v. Weiss, 954 S.W.2d 456, 459, hn. 6 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1997).

However, if there is no settlement agreement, then the court generally CANNOT validly order the non-custodial parent to maintain life insurance for the benefit of the children of the marriage.  The rationale is that such an order makes the non-custodial parent pay child support past the date of his/her death which is contrary to Missouri law.

But, note that a court may order a spouse to maintain life insurance with the other spouse as beneficiary to secure that spouse’s obligation to pay a particular sum of maintenance over time or perhaps to satisfy some other marital obligation as ordered by the court.  This type of life insurance order may be used because it is not one which has do with child support.

In sum, the rule now in Missouri (other states may handle this differently) is that the court cannot validly order the non-custodial parent to maintain life insurance for the benefit of the children unless the parties so agree in a written settlement included or perhaps incorporated in the court’s divorce judgment.

It would also be a good idea to provide (and get a receipt in person or by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested) a copy of the judgment and settlement agreement to the insurance company to put them on notice in case the non-custodial parent tries to change the beneficiary or cancel/non-renew the policy.

Kurt H. King

Law Office of Kurt H. King, 816.781.6000, 20 E. Franklin, Liberty, Clay County, Missouri 64068

www.kurthking.com

Bankruptcy, Child Support & Custody, Divorce & Modification, Family Law

Personal Injury, Missouri Workers’ Compensation

« Previous PageNext Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.