Coffman v. Kline, PICS Case No. 17-1244 (Pa. Super. July 24, 2017) Bowed, J. (18 pages).
The trial court erred in determining that the procedure for distribution of the settlement proceeds outlined in 23 Pa. C. S. § 4308.1 applied to father's settlement for workers' compensation benefits and that neither a workers' compensation judge nor a claims servicer were required to comply with an otherwise valid nondisbursement order. The court reversed and remanded.
August 18, 2017 at 12:45 PM
6 minute read
Child Support Obligation • Support Lien • Workers' Compensation Settlement
Coffman v. Kline, PICS Case No. 17-1244 (Pa. Super. July 24, 2017) Bowed, J. (18 pages).
The trial court erred in determining that the procedure for distribution of the settlement proceeds outlined in 23 Pa. C. S. § 4308.1 applied to father's settlement for workers' compensation benefits and that neither a workers' compensation judge nor a claims servicer were required to comply with an otherwise valid nondisbursement order. The court reversed and remanded.
The parties are the parents of a minor child born in 2011. In early 2015, the trial court ordered father to pay mother $602 per month in child support and arrearages of $13,890. Thereafter, the Lehigh County Domestic Relations Section (DRS) learned that father was negotiating a compromise and release settlement with his employer relating to an injury he suffered at work. DRS issued a nondisbursement order pursuant to 23 Pa. C. S. § 4305 and served it on third-party workers' compensation claim servicer Sedgwick Claims Management. The order precluded Sedgwick from disbursing any settlement owed to father until directed by the court. Ultimately, father entered a settlement agreement with his employer. A workers' compensation judge approved the settlement. The WCJ found that father had a child support lien against him for arrearages of $14,938, but noted that father's settlement of $3,400 fell below the statutory threshold of $5,000 in 23 Pa. C. S. § 4308.1. Thus, the WCJ found that there was no recoverable child support lien by operation of law. Sedgwick released the entire settlement to father. DRS filed a petition for contempt against Sedgwick. The trial court found that since Sedgwick had followed the procedure for distribution of a settlement as outlined in § 4308.1, the company was not in contempt of court. On appeal, the appellate court noted that DRS's powers and duties were enumerated in § 4305 while § 4308.1 governed the collection of overdue support for monetary awards. Sedgwick conceded that DRS had authority under in § 4305 to enforce and collect child support arrearages by seizing lump sum settlements under a workers' compensation claim, but argued that such power was limited by § 4308.1, which specifically controlled workers' compensation matters. The appellate court found that its holding in Campbell v. Walker, 982 A.2d 1013 (Pa. Super. 2009) expressly rejected the claim that the language in § 4308.1 superseded the language in § 4305. Thus, the automatic statutory lien imposed by § 4308.1 only applied to the net proceeds of father's award. Father did not receive such an excess; thus, there was no lien for the WCJ to automatically disburse pursuant to § 4308.1. Accordingly, the appellate court found that the trial court erred in determining that the procedure for distribution of the settlement proceeds outlined in § 4308.1 applied to father's $3,400 settlement and that neither the WCJ nor Sedgwick were required to comply with the DRS's otherwise valid nondisbursement order. The court also found that the immunity provision of § 4308.1 did not apply to actions taken under in § 4305. Moreover, mother demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Sedgwick willfully violated a court order. As such, the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing mother's petition for contempt with prejudice.
Child Support Obligation • Support Lien • Workers' Compensation Settlement
Coffman v. Kline, PICS Case No. 17-1244 (Pa. Super. July 24, 2017) Bowed, J. (18 pages).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All$8M Settlement Reached in Wrongful Death, Negligence Suits Against Phila. Foster Agency
4 minute readState Supreme Court Clarifies Special Immigrant Juvenile Practice in Pa.
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Commission Confirms Three of Newsom's Appellate Court Picks
- 2Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 3GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 4'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 5Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250