The Law Office of Kurt H King

October 18, 2012

Thoughts On The Social Security Offset Against Missouri Workers’ Compensation

Filed under: Missouri Workers Compensation — kurthking @ 4:38 pm
Tags: , ,

Take for example, a Permanent Partial Disability workers’  compensation settlement in a case where the injured worker will need to file for Social Security Disability benefits due to inability to engage in substantially gainful employment.  Not only do we have to worry about Medicaid taking the position that some of the settlement money was for future medical expenses and therefore Medicaid will not pay for them, but we also have to be concerned about Social Security offsetting/reducing its payments to the injured worker to the extent that the work comp and Social Security exceed 80% of the worker’s Average Current Earnings (ACE).

An attorney needs to run the numbers (particularly the workers’ ACE) on this offset for the injured worker, and structure the work comp settlement agreement/stipulation–including these two areas:

1) First allocate and subtract out that part of the award that goes for attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and medical expenses–these should be  “excluded”  which reduces the amount of work comp that Social Security factors in to determine if the Social Security plus work comp exceed 80% of the worker’s ACE.

2)  Find the worker’s life expectancy and divide the remaining work comp settlement by the total number of months of that life expectancy to arrive at what one would hope is a low amount of work comp per month so that when added to monthly Social Security the two do not exceed 80% of the worker’s ACE.

IMO, these are the two “biggies.”

 

Kurt H. King

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

http://www.kurthking.com

Workers’ Compensation, Personal Injury, Litigation

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy for debtors

Family Law–Dissolution of Marriage, Modifications, Child Custody, Child Support, Paternity

March 27, 2012

Embezzler Entitled to Offset for Accounting Firm’s Failure to Catch the Embezzlement

Filed under: Litigation — kurthking @ 4:54 pm
Tags: , , , ,

Interesting new Missouri case out of the Eastern Division of the Court of Appeals involving embezzlement of roughly $2.4 million–Moore Automotive Group v. Lewis, et al., Slip Op. No. ED95870 (Filed March 20, 2012).

Over 8 years, the Chief Financial Officer of the plaintiff automotive group (the “Group”) embezzles over $2.4 million to “pay her personal expenses.”  The accounting firm used by the Group fails to catch the embezzlement.  When finally caught, the CFO/employee pleads guilty in U.S. District Court.  The Group sues the employee for the $2.4 million and the court grants summary judgment for the Group against the employee, based on written motions without a trial to the court or jury.  The employee appeals, contending that it is error to grant summary judgment because there is a material fact as to how much the $2.4 million should be reduced by offsets.  The main offsets are the $1.5 million the accounting paid firm paid the Group for its mistakes in not catching the embezzlement; another $500,000 of accounting fees that the accounting firm “forgave”–wrote off; and $115k from American Express. 

All agreed that the $115k paid by American Express to the Group is an offset which reduced the $2.4 million total.  The main question addressed by the court of appeals is whether the $1.5 million paid in settlement by the accounting firm is also an offset.  Ultimately, the court of appeals ruled that “yes” the $1.5 million is an offset, and sent the case back down to the trial court without reaching the argument for further offset due to the $500k forgiveness of accounting fees.

The main rule of law applied is simple–“Under Missouri law, a plaintiff is entitled to only one satisfaction of the same wrong.”   So, the Group cannot have judgment against  the employee for $2.4 million, take the $1.5 million in settlement from that the accounting firm, ($500k accounting fee write off?), and receive $115k from American Express since all that would total $4 million for a $2.4 million loss. 

So the Group hatched Plan A–argue that the $1.5 million was for something else besides the embezzlement.  This the Group could not show.  In fact the facts pointed the opposite direction as important witnesses basically said that the reason why the accounting firm paid the $1.5 million was to settle the Group’s claim against the firm for failure to prevent or detect the embezzlement.  

Losing on that one, the Group goes to Plan B–the Collateral Source Rule precludes the embezzler from benefitting from the $1.5 million paid by a collateral source, i.e., the accounting firm.  But, the Rule is mainly to prevent the wrongdoer from benefitting from payments by insurance companies  to which the injured plaintiff typically pays insurance premiums.  Clearly a wrongdoer should not benefit from insurance for which the injured plaintiff has been paying out his/her/its own pocket.  While the Rule has been stretched a bit beyond the typical insurance scenario, the court of appeals declines to pull it so far as to cover the accounting firm’s payment of $1.5 million.

The Group loses on Plan B too.  The court of appeals simply sees the $1.5 million settlement as a contract after the loss and not as insurance premium payments.  The Rule does not apply and the result is that the $1.5 million offset applies to cut the Group’s damages to around $900k (and maybe down another $500k for the accounting fees that firm wrote off).

This may seem like a big win for the embezzler–and it is–but the accounting firm and American Express could sue her for indemnity or contribution to recover the money they had to pay the Group due to to the embezzlement.  The result may be more lawsuits  against the embezzler by the accounting firm for $1.5 million and maybe another $500k, and $115k by American Express–which may or may not happen depending on whether the embezzler is now bankrupt, litigation costs, etc.  There was also reference to sale of her assets in connection with her plea bargain on criminal charges in federal court  so there may be some restitution required there that might conceivably put some money back in the pockets of the accounting firm and American Express.

Of note for attorneys is the court of appeals’ indication that a claim for offset should be pled as an affirmative defense or the offset may be lost.

Kurt H. King

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

816.781.6000

Civil & Business Litigation, Bankruptcy

Personal Injury & Workers’ Compensation

Family Law–Child Custody & Support, Paternity, Dissolution & Modification

www.kurthking.com

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

Blog at WordPress.com.