Chris Hanneken v. Storage USA

1. Are any benefits awarded herein? Yes
2. Was the injury or occupational disease compensable under Chapter 287? Yes
3. Was there an accident or incident of occupational disease under the Law? Yes
4. Date of accident or onset of occupational disease: 6/02/04
5. State location where accident occurred or occupational disease was contracted: St. Charles County, Missouri
6. Was above employee in employ of above employer at time of alleged accident or occupational disease? Yes
7. Did employer receive proper notice? Yes
8. Did accident or occupational disease arise out of and in the course of the employment? Yes
9. Was claim for compensation filed within time required by Law? Yes
10. Was employer insured by above insurer? Yes
11. Describe work employee was doing and how accident occurred or occupational disease contracted: Employee suffered a fatal gunshot wound to the head while at work
12. Did accident or occupational disease cause death? Yes Date of death? 6/02/04
13. Part(s) of body injured by accident or occupational disease: head injury resulted in death
14. Nature and extent of any permanent disability: See award
15. Compensation paid to-date for temporary disability: n/a
16. Value necessary medical aid paid to date by employer/insurer? n/a
17. Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer/insurer? n/a
18. Employee's average weekly wages: $\ 423.00
19. Weekly compensation rate: $\ 282.06
20. Method wages computation: by agreement of the parties

1. Amount of compensation payable: Death benefit payable to presumed total dependent, Madelynn Christine Hanneken, in the amount of $\ 282.06 per week, from 12/28/04 to the date of hearing in this matter, 1/08/07, and continuing thereafter for so long as the claimant is entitled under the provisions of Section 287.240 RSMo.

The death benefit is ordered to be paid to Ms. Amanda Lewis, the mother of Madelynn Christine Hanneken, for the support, maintenance, and education of

1. Future requirements awarded: See award

Said payments to begin as of the date of this award and to be payable and be subject to modification and review as provided by law.

The compensation awarded to the claimant shall be subject to a lien in the amount of 25 % of all payments hereunder in favor of the following attorney for necessary legal services rendered to the claimant: Donald L. Kohl

Employee: Chris A. Hanneken (deceased)

Injury No: 04-072386

Before the

DIVISION OF WORKERS'

COMPENSATION

Department of Labor and Industrial Relations of Missouri

Jefferson City, Missouri

Dependents: Madelynn Christine Hanneken

Employer: Storage USA

Additional Party n/a

Insurer: Federal Insurance Company

Checked by: KD/lsn

The claimant, Madelynn Christine Hanneken, alleges to be a dependent entitled to death benefits following the work related death of Chris A. Hanneken. The parties stipulated at hearing that while in the employment of Storage USA, Chris A. Hanneken suffered a compensable injury by accident on the $2^{\text {nd }}$ day of June, 2004, resulting in his death. The only issue to be resolved at hearing concerns whether Madelynn Hanneken qualifies as a dependent entitled to death benefits under the Chapter 287 RSMo, otherwise known as "The Workers' Compensation Law".

The employer/insurer and the alleged dependent appeared at hearing by and through their counsel. Ms. Amanda Lewis appeared in her capacity as the mother of the claimant, testified on her daughter's behalf, and was the only witness to appear and testify at the hearing. The employer and insurer submitted the testimony of Gary White by his affidavit.

The following exhibits are in evidence:

A. Certified business records of Paternity Testing Corporation

B. Certificate of Death

C. Birth Certification of Madelynn Christine Hanneken

1. Affidavit of Gary White
2. Wage records
3. Storage USA New Hire form

The parties further stipulated to the findings as contained in the paternity testing within Exhibit A.

Ms. Amanda Lewis testified in a generally credible manner, and her testimony is found to be worthy of belief. Ms. Lewis and the deceased, Chris A. Hanneken, met in October of 2003. The relationship became intimate in November of 2003. In January of 2004 Ms. Hanneken began living with Mr. Hanneken in an apartment he leased. At the time, Ms. Lewis was working two jobs, substitute teaching and working nights at Tucker's Restaurant. Ms. Lewis acknowledges that while sharing the apartment the two continued to pay their own bills, but would share groceries.

On May 24, 2004, Ms. Lewis discovered that she was pregnant. She advised Mr. Hanneken that same evening. The testimony by affidavit of Mr. Gary White persuades that Mr. Hanneken was hired by Storage USA on 5/06/04 to manage one if its facilities, but that he did not begin working until 5/19/04. On 6/02/04, just nine or so days after learning of the involved pregnancy, Mr. Hanneken suffered a fatal gunshot wound to the head while at work.

Amanda Lewis gave birth to her daughter, Madelynn Christine Hanneken, on 12/28/04. Medical information available to Ms. Lewis revealed that the baby had been a fetus in utero for from four to six weeks as of the date of Mr. Hanneken's death. Mr. Hanneken and Ms. Lewis were never married, and Ms. Lewis acknowledged at hearing that as of the time of death, there was no court order obligating Mr. Hanneken to provide support for Madelynn, nor had any paternity testing been performed.

Subsequent to her daughter's birth, Ms. Lewis sought and received permission to have DNA sampling made available for paternity testing to determine the probability that Mr. Hanneken was the father of Madelynn Christine. The involved testing revealed the probability of paternity to be 99.999 % (See Claimant's Exhibit A).

Ms. Lewis currently lives with her only child, Madelynn, and with certain other family members in Imperial, Missouri. As of the date of hearing in this matter, Ms. Lewis was employed at St. Louis Children's Hospital, where she works as a teacher in the Child Development Center.

Madelynn Christine Hanneken is the only claimant asserting an entitlement to a benefit in this matter. The relevant sections of the involved statute, Section 287.240 RSMo, provide for a death benefit for the dependents of those who suffer an injury that causes death. "Dependent" is defined in paragraph (4) of Section 287.240 as follows:

The word "dependent" as used in this chapter shall be construed to mean a relative by blood or marriage of a deceased employee, who is actually dependent for support, in whole or in part, upon his or her wages at the time of the injury. The following persons shall be conclusively presumed to be totally dependent for support upon a deceased employee, and any death benefit shall be payable to them to the exclusion of other total dependents:

Section 287.240(4)(b) goes on to identify the following as presumed total dependents:

A natural, posthumous, or adopted child or children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, under the age of eighteen years, or over that age if physically or mentally incapacitated from wage earning, upon the parent legally liable for the support or with whom he, she, or they are living at the time of the death of the parent. In case there is a

wife or a husband mentally or physically incapacitated from wage earning, dependent upon a wife or husband, and a child or more than one child thus dependent, the death benefit shall be divided among them in such proportion as may be determined by the commission after considering their ages and other facts bearing on the dependency. In all other cases questions of total or partial dependency shall be determined in accordance with the facts at the time of the injury, and in such other cases if there is more than one person wholly dependent the death benefit shall be divided equally among them. The payment of death benefits to a child or other dependent as provided in this paragraph shall cease when the dependent dies, attains the age of eighteen years, or becomes physically and mentally capable of wage earning over that age, or until twenty-two years of age if the child of the deceased is in attendance and remains as a full-time student in any accredited educational institution, or if at eighteen years of age the dependent child is a member of the armed forces of the United States on active duty; provided, however, that such dependent child shall be entitled to compensation during four years of full-time attendance at a fully accredited educational institution to commence prior to twenty-three years of age and immediately upon cessation of his active duty in the armed forces, unless there are other total dependents entitled to the death benefit under this chapter; (emphasis added)

The statute reveals the intention to include as presumed total dependents both legitimate or illegitimate children fathered by the deceased but who are born after the father's death. Treating a "posthumous child" as a dependent has a long history, as noted by the Supreme Court of Alaska in S.L.W. v Alaska Workmens' Compensation Board, 490 P.2d 42 , 46, (Alaska 1971) where the Court notes:

Once it is perceived that an illegitimate can qualify as a 'posthumous child', the dependency problem presents little difficulty. For it is an old rule that a child en ventre sa mere will be considered a child in esse, if it is for his benefit, and he may thereby rank as a dependent. McLain v. Howald, 120 Mich. 274, 79 N.W. 182 (1899):

King v. Peninsu