In Moffett v. Family Home Builders, Supervising Judge of Compensation Jill Fader denied a Motion to Amend an Order for Total Disability filed by counsel for the Second Injury Fund (SIF). Attorneys, for the employee and the employer, opposed the motion noting counsel for SIF lacked legal standing to make the application to amend Order for Total Disability and that the employee remained totally and permanently disabled.
The employee was previously found to be totally and permanently disabled as a result of an accident that occurred on September 23, 1973. The employer was paying total disability benefits in accordance with the statute and the employee filed a request for Special Adjustment of Benefits which is payable out of the SIF.
Counsel for the SIF did not challenge employee’s eligibility for total disability before filing the application to amend the Order for Total Disability on January 6, 2014, and the SIF was not a party to the underlying claim that resulted in the employee being awarded total disability.
In making the application to amend the Order for Total Disability, attorneys for SIF argued they have standing to seek an amendment of the employee’s Order for Total Disability, based upon thier interest of protecting SIF, from which Special Adjustment of Benefits are paid. In support of the application, the SIF provided a certification stating it was notified that the employee had returned to work in 1989 and in or around April 1993.
Judge Fader agreed with the attorneys for the employee and employer, that the employee’s filing for Special Adjustment of Benefits did not grant attorneys for SIF legal standing to apply for an Amendment of the Order for Total Disability and the Judge noted that SIF was not a party to the underlying claim. Additionally, Judge Fader, relying upon the facts before the Court, found no basis to believe the employee was not eligible to receive total disability benefits.
Furthermore, the Judge found that even if the attorneys for the SIF did have standing, under the equitable doctrine of laches, it would have been prejudicial to allow the challenge some 25 years after notice of employment was received by the SIF.
Comments: This ruling affirms that the SIF, when not party to an underlying claim resulting in total pernament disability, cannot make an application to amend an employee’s Award of Total Disability. Additionally, it is important to understand that when making an application to amend an employee’s Award of Total Disability, undue delay found by the Court to prejudice the employee, may result in the Court declining the application.
Authored By: Ronni Bright