Opinion
J-S78024-17 No. 734 WDA 2017
07-10-2018
JO ANN BUSKEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT E. BUSKEY, JR., DECEASED v. KUKURIN CONTRACTING, INC., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION; SAKAI AMERICA MANUFACTURING, INC., A/K/A SAKAI AMERICA, INC., A GEORGIA CORPORATION AND SAKAI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, INC., A/K/A SAKAI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD., A FOREIGN CORPORATION APPEAL OF: FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND EXPORT FUEL COMPANY, INC.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order April 21, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Civil Division at No(s): 3530 of 2013 BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellants, Federated Mutual Insurance Company and Export Fuel Company, Inc., appeal from the April 21, 2017 Order entered in the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas affirming the November 18, 2016 Order approving the Petition to Compromise and Settle Wrongful Death and Survival Action, and apportioning the settlement amount. After careful review, we affirm.
On August 28, 2012, an asphalt roller fatally injured Robert E. Buskey, Jr. ("Decedent") in the course of his employment at Export Fuel Company. Jo Ann Buskey, Decedent's widow ("Appellee"), filed a wrongful death and survival action against Defendants Kukurin Contracting, Inc. and Sakai America Manufacturing, Inc. The parties reached a settlement prior to trial, whereby Sakai agreed to pay Appellee $475,000, and Kukurin agreed to pay her $425,000.
Appellant, Federated Mutal Insurance Co. ("Federated"), is Appellant Export Fuel Company's workers' compensation insurance carrier. At the time the parties settled the case, Appellant Federated had paid $101,705.72 in workers' compensation death benefits to Appellee. Thus, pursuant to Section 319 of the Workers' Compensation Act (the "Act"), Appellant Federated holds a subrogation lien against the economic damages portion of any settlement Appellee receives.
On November 11, 2016, Appellee filed a Petition to Compromise and Settle Wrongful Death and Survival Action seeking the trial court's permission to allocate the settlement proceeds and to make distributions to Appellee and the adult children she shared with Decedent. On November 18, 2016, the trial court granted Appellee's Petition and allocated the settlement as follows: (1) $420,000 in equal shares to each of the adult children as wrongful death damages and not subject to the worker's compensation lien; (2) $360,000 to Appellee for her loss of Decedent's services, comfort, support, society, and affection, and not subject to the workers' compensation lien; and (3) $120,000 to Appellee for the loss of Decedent's financial support and subject to the worker's compensation lien. Trial Ct. Order, 11/18/16, at 1-2.
The court characterized 25% of Appellee's settlement as economic damages and 75% as non-economic damages. 100% of the settlement with Decedent's adult children represented non-economic damages. Thus, of the total settlement amount—$900,000—only 13%, i.e. $120,000, constitutes subrogable economic damages.
On November 28, 2016, Appellants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order approving the proposed distribution, arguing that the allocation "is essentially intended and designed to eliminate or reduce the Employer's pool of subrogable monies and future credit against the balance and recovery" pursuant to the Act. Motion, dated 11/28/16, at ¶ 6. Appellants urged the court to reconsider its allocation of $120,000 of Appellee's settlement to economic damages when Appellee's economic-loss expert, Dr. Matthew R. Marlin, had opined that, at a minimum, Appellee had suffered $485,000 in economic damages resulting from Decedent's lost income. Id. at 8.
The trial court granted Appellants' Motion for Reconsideration and held a hearing on February 2, 2017. Appellee and her five adult children testified at the hearing. Appellants did not present any witnesses at the hearing. The parties stipulated to the admission of Dr. Marlin's economic-loss report.
Following the hearing, on April 21, 2017, the court again granted Appellee's Petition and affirmed its November 18, 2016 Order. This timely appeal followed. Appellants and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellants raise the following two issues for our review:
1. Whether the proposed allocation of the settlement proceeds to [Appellee] had a reasonable basis and was consistent with the evidentiary record offered in this matter at the February 2, 2017 hearing, wherein the [t]rial [c]ourt abused its discretion and/or committed an error of law in not applying the report of Matthew R. Marlin, Ph.D, which reflected that the Decedent's death resulted in loss of net income attributable the Decedent's death greater than the 25% settlement apportionment approved by the Order of Court dated November 18, 2016.Appellants' Brief at 5-6.
2. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt, by granting Appellee's Petition for Approval to Compromise and Settle Plaintiff's Wrongful Death and survival Action erred as a matter of law and/or abused its discretion by failing to adequately apply and uphold the Superior Court ruling in Urmann v. Rockwood Casualty Insurance Company , 905 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2006) that requires a [c]ourt to ensure the allocation of a settlement is a fair apportionment based on the facts, as distinguished from whether the apportionment was allocated not based on facts but designed to maximize [ ] recovery to the plaintiffs at the expense of a workers' compensation lien, thereby reducing the employer's future credit against future installments of a wage loss compensation due to be paid [Appellee].
Although Appellants provide two issues in their Statement of Questions Involved, they fail to address them in the manner required by our rules of appellate procedure. Rather than addressing the issues specifically raised above, as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), Appellants provide us with a primer on an employer's right to subrogation, the Workers Compensation Act, and the difference between loss of consortium and wrongful death, before arguing that the court misapplied Urmann v. Rockwood Casualty Insurance Company , 905 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2006). Appellants aver that "this Court should give greater weight to the opinions of Dr. Marlin—the economic expert Appellee intended to rely on in the civil liability action—to support an allocation of at least 44% of Mrs. Buskey's total settlement toward economic damages with 56% to emotional and/or loss of household services." Appellants' Brief at 24. Appellants also assert that in allocating only 25% of Appellee's settlement to economic damages, the court "subverts the tenants [sic] outlined by the holding in Baus [ v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Nelson Co. et al.) , 585 A.2d 573 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991)]" so that the allocation "prematurely returns the burden of the payment of lost earnings to the Appellants to compensate Appellee for economic damages caused by the civil action defendants." Id at 25. Distilled to its essence, Appellants' argument seems to be that the court did not weigh the evidence in a manner that would render an allocation of the settlement proceeds "equitable" with respect to their subrogation lien.
Rule 2119(a) requires an appellant's brief to "be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued[.]"
Appellants fail to describe what the Baus tenets are and provide no analysis of Baus as it relates to the facts of this case. "[I]t is an appellant's duty to present arguments that are sufficiently developed for our review ... with pertinent discussion [and] references to the record[.]" Commonwealth v. Hardy , 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007). This Court "will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant." Id. Issues not developed in the argument section of a brief are waived. Harkins v. Calumet Realty Co., 614 A.2d 699, 703 (Pa. Super. 1992). Accordingly, Appellant has waived any issues reliant on directives or holdings provided in Baus.
This Court reviews a trial court's order approving or denying a settlement agreement for an abuse of discretion. Dauphin Deposit Bank and Trust Co. v. Hess , 727 A.2d 1076, 1080 (Pa. 1999). However, our standard of review "is plenary as to questions of law." Urmann , 905 A.2d at 518 (citations omitted). "We will overturn the trial court's decision only when the court's factual findings are contrary to the weight of the evidence or when its legal conclusions are erroneous. Id.
In considering the allocation and apportionment of settlement proceeds, the trial court is responsible for ensuring that the allocation represents "a fair apportionment based on the facts of the case," and not a purposeful subversion of the right of the workers' compensation insurer to collect on its subrogation lien. Id. at 523 (emphasis added).
In Urmann , the plaintiffs' workers' compensation insurance carrier opposed the settlement of the plaintiffs' tort claim allocating over 80% of the plaintiffs' recovery to the loss of consortium claim, which would not be subject to its workers' compensation subrogation lien. Following a hearing, at which the plaintiffs presented three witnesses and the carrier presented none, the trial court confirmed the settlement agreement. On appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court, holding that the apportionment of settlement funds is appropriate when it is "based on a good faith attempt to apportion the claim based on the facts, rather than on a motivation intended to, and designed to, or motivated to eliminate or reduce unconscionably, a subrogation lien." Urmann , 905 A.2d at 518.
Appellants contend that because the expert report, admitted on stipulation, opined on Appellee's minimum economic damages, the trial court misapplied Urmann in affirming the apportionment of damages suggested by Appellee. See Appellants' Brief at 24. We disagree.
Our review of the record and the trial court's Opinion indicates that the court considered all of the evidence presented before concluding that "the 75/25 settlement apportionment between the wrongful death action and the survival action was based on a good faith attempt to apportion the claim based on the facts." Trial Ct. Op., 4/21/17, at 5. Like Urmann , the court heard significant testimony about the non-economic damages suffered by Decedent's wife and children. As Urmann instructs, the court weighed all of the evidence, including the expert's report, which "[did] not take into account the value of [Decedent's] support, comfort, society, affection, guidance, and companionship which, in these circumstances, were significant aspects of [Decedent's] contribution to his wife and children." Trial Ct. Op., at 5. The court concluded that the non-economic losses "far outweighed the loss of earned income occasioned by [Decedent's] death." Id. Our review of the record supports the conclusion that the apportionment is based on a "good faith attempt to apportion the claim based on the facts." Urmann , supra at 518. There is no evidence that the court or Appellee attempted "to eliminate or reduce unconscionably, a subrogation lien." Id .
Likewise, contrary to Appellants' contention, there is no evidence that the trial court held "disdain for the Appellants." Appellants' Brief at 28.
Following our review of the certified record and relevant case law, we conclude that the court's factual findings are supported by the weight of the evidence and its legal conclusions are correct. The Honorable Richard E. McCormick, Jr., who presided at the hearing, has authored a comprehensive, thorough, and well-reasoned Opinion, citing to the record and relevant case law in addressing Appellants' challenge to the apportionment of Appellee's settlement. After careful review of the parties' arguments and the record, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's Opinion. See Trial Ct. Op., 4/21/17, at 3-6 (concluding that: (1) Appellee presented compelling and undisputed evidence outlining the extent to which Decedent's death had a direct and indirect economic and non-economic impact on his family; (2) the record is replete with evidence of the non-pecuniary benefits offered by Decedent to his family; (3) Dr. Marlin's figures did not take into account the value of Decedent's significant non-economic contribution to Appellee, which far outweighed the loss of his earned income; and (4) the apportionment of the settlement is based on a good faith attempt to apportion the claim based on the facts, rather than on a motivation intended to eliminate or reduce unconscionably a subrogation lien.)
The parties are instructed to attach a copy of the trial court's April 21, 2017 Opinion to all future filings.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 7/10/2018
Image materials not available for display.