ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District has affirmed a circuit court’s judgment against Walker Recycling Company, rejecting the company’s appeal that challenged a corrected settlement agreement awarding more than $50,000 to a claimant.
The settlement was previously awarded to David Kell in the amount of $50,079.53 plus costs, according to the Sept. 30 court opinion.
The ruling stems from a workers’ compensation case in which Walker Recycling argued it should not be bound by a settlement due to a clerical error in the naming of the employer.
The case originated from Kell’s Division of Workers’ Compensation claim alleging a workplace injury while employed by Walker Recycling.
Attorney Clinton Roberts represented Walker Recycling until Jan. 28, 2022, when he withdrew, citing that another attorney had entered an appearance for the employer. On Feb. 22, 2022, the new attorney entered his appearance, mistakenly naming the employer as “Walker Recycling, LLC.”
That same day, the administrative law judge approved a stipulation for compromise settlement under the incorrect name.
The agreement, signed by Kell, his attorney, Walker Recycling’s attorney and the judge, required a lump sum payment of $50,079.53.
In November 2023, Kell filed an amended petition in circuit court requesting correction of the clerical mistake and enforcement of the settlement.
Walker Recycling, again represented by Roberts, admitted receiving and approving the settlement before it was finalized, despite knowing it identified the employer as “Walker Recycling, LLC.”
However, the company argued the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to correct a clerical error in an administrative order and further claimed that because the settlement misidentified the employer, the court could not enforce it.
A bench trial was held on April 23, 2024 and Kell submitted as evidence the certified record of the workers’ compensation case.
Walker Recycling moved for a directed verdict, asserting that the court had no authority to issue a nunc pro tunc order correcting the administrative record and contending Kell had not established the company’s state of mind when approving the settlement.
Kell countered that Missouri law grants circuit courts authority to correct such mistakes. After considering whether to present additional evidence about its intent, Walker Recycling ultimately declined.
On Oct. 30, 2024, the circuit court entered judgment in Kell’s favor, granting his request to correct the clerical mistake and modifying the employer’s name to “Walker Recycling Co., LLC.”
The court entered judgment against Walker Recycling in the amount of $50,079.53 plus costs. Walker Recycling’s subsequent motions to set aside, correct or retry the judgment were denied, prompting the appeal.
In its appeal, Walker Recycling raised three points.
First, it argued that the judgment lacked substantial evidence because there was no proof of why it authorized its attorney to sign the settlement.
The appellate court rejected this, holding that the company’s state of mind was irrelevant since the record established that Walker Recycling authorized its attorney to enter into the agreement.
The court also noted that Walker Recycling’s position implied a scenario suggestive of fraud or ethical violations, which would not excuse the company from its obligations.
The opinion noted that authorizing a settlement on the assumption it bound another entity would not be a legitimate legal strategy, but instead could expose both the company and its attorneys to serious consequences.
The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the circuit court’s judgment.
Judges Virginia W. Lay, Michael S. Wright and Philip M. Hess all concurred in the decision.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District case number: ED113338
