Section 287.430 sets forth a time limit within which an employee must file a formal Claim for Compensation (either a DWC Form 43 or enough of a statement of his claim so that what is claimed can be learned from the four corners of the written document. The time frames are important, and is basically as follows:
- If a Form 1, Report of Injury, has been filed with the Division under Section 287.380, the employee has two years after the date of injury or death, or the last payment date made or lost time (TTD) and medical treatment because of the injury or death.
- If the Form 1 has not been filed, this period is extended to 3 years.
- The "Statute of Limitations" is one of extinction, not repose, so it cannot be resurrected after time has run for the employee to file the claim.
In Ming v General Motors Corporation, 2004 WL 193132 (Mo.App. E.D. 2004), employee?s was injured in 1993 and filed a negligence suit against GM in 1995 and voluntarily dismissed the case against GM in 1996. In 1997, employee filed another negligence suit against GM and that case was dismissed in 1999 on the grounds that employee was a statutory employee of GM and subject to the Workers? Compensation Act. In 1999, employee filed a workers? compensation claim against GM. The Court of Appeals determined that the second lawsuit filed in 1997 against GM was eligible to toll the statute of limitations since it was an action at law for damages resulting from bodily injury, and recovery was denied because GM was an employer and subject to the Workers? Compensation Act. The Court of Appeals determined that a suit filed over four years from the injury cannot toll the statute of limitations and the claim is barred since it was filed over six years after the injury.
In Oberreiter v Fullbright, 117 S.W.3d 710 (Mo.App E.D. 2003), a worker?s family filed a wrongful death suit against employer in 1989 and then in 1993, they filed a claim for workers? compensation, which was dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. They then moved to dismiss the death suit in 1999 on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction because the employer was subject to the workers? compensation act. The Court ruled that they could re-file the worker?s compensation claim in 1999 because the statute of limitations was tolled under V.A.M.S.?287.440 since the death suit was ultimately dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Award granting death benefits and funeral expenses affirmed.
In Elrod v Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund, 2003 WL 22002785, (Mo. App. E.D. 2003), State Treasurer appealed award ordering Second Injury Fund to pay permanent partial disability benefits to workers? compensation claimant. The Court of Appeals found that the word "claim" in statute requiring a workers? compensation claimant to file a claim against the Second Injury Fund within two years of injury or within one year of filing a "claim" against employer, whichever is later, refers to the primary claim filed against employer, and not any subsequent amended claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
In Rupard v Kiesendahl, DDS, 114 S.W.3d 389, (Mo. App. E.D. 2003), employer/insurer appealed from a temporary/partial award from the Commission of workers? compensation benefits to claimant since they contended that they were not liable for the payment of compensation for employee?s occupational disease since employee did not file within the three-year statute of limitations period under ?287.430. Employer contended that employee?s injuries were apparent and reasonably discoverable as of Oct 1996, more than three-years prior to when she filed her workers? compensation claim on Oct 2000. Employee sought medical attention for several years and was advised by her doctor that her condition was related to her employment.