Missouri Revised Statutes
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.580 (2026)
Death, pending proceedings
✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
287.580. Death, pending proceedings — action shall not abate. — If any party shall die pending any proceedings under this chapter, the same shall not abate, but on notice to the parties may be revived and proceed in favor of the successor to the rights or against the personal representative of the party liable, in like manner as in civil actions.
--------
(RSMo 1939 § 3742)
Prior revision: 1929 § 3352
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1970–2024 · leading case: Robert Edwards (Deceased) v. Clint Zweifel, 498 S.W.3d 860 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
Robert Edwards (Deceased) v. Clint Zweifel, 498 S.W.3d 860 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). “Edwards”) as a party to her deceased husband’s workers’ compensation claim pursuant to section 287.580. 1 We dismiss the appeal for lack of a final, appealable award.”
Taylor v. Ballard R-II Sch. Dist., 274 S.W.3d 629 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). “Marvin, Glennda’s husband, moved the Commission to substitute himself as a party to the proceeding under section 287.580. 1 The Commission granted Marvin’s motion, allowing him to proceed in the matter, and further stated that, “[u]n-der Section 287.”
Accident Fund Ins. Co. v. Casey, 550 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. 2018). “If a workers' compensation claimant dies while the claim is pending, "the same shall not abate, but on notice to the parties may be revived and proceed in favor of the successor to the rights or against the personal representative of the party liable, in like manner as in civil…”
Nance v. Maxon Elec., Inc., 395 S.W.3d 527 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). “*536 In short, section 287.580 grants the Commission the authority to commute future PTD payments into a lump-sum amount, even if the application comes after the award is final.”
Edwards v. Treasurer of the State, 529 S.W.3d 7 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). “On October 26, 2015, Claimant filed her Suggestions in Opposition to the SIF’s Objection to her motion, in which Claimant modified her motion by eliminating her request for the Commission to determine her entitlement to successor benefits, instead seeking only to substitute…”
Est. of Dunkin v. Treasurer of the State—Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, 516 S.W.3d 863 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). “After Leonard passed away on July 5, 2015, his surviving spouse, Deborah, filed a motion with the Commission to be substituted as a party in the underlying case under section 287.580 3 for the purpose of being awarded Leonard’s permanent total disability benefits as his…”
Elsworth v. Wayne Cnty., 547 S.W.3d 599 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). “Elsworth"), is the proper successor to his rights per § 287.580, the Commission substituted Mrs.”
Bone v. Daniel Hamm Drayage Co., 449 S.W.2d 169 (Mo. 1970). “Section 287.580, V.A.M.S., provides that “if any party shall die pending any proceedings under this chapter, the same shall not abate, but * * * may be revived and proceed in favor of the successor to the rights or against the personal representative of the party liable, in like…”
Abel ex rel. Abel v. Mike Russell's Stand. Serv., 901 S.W.2d 299 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). “Abel died during the pendency of his workers’ compensation claim, § 287.580 is applicable. That section provides: If any party shall die pending any proceedings under this chapter, the same shall not abate, but on notice to the parties may be revived and proceed in favor of the…”
Butterball, LLC v. Madeleine Dobrauc, 599 S.W.3d 495 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020). “Citing section 287.580 and Rule 52.13(a)(1), the Commission found that Employee died while proceedings were pending and "no substitution of parties has been requested pursuant to § 287.”
AMIE ELSWORTH v. WAYNE Cnty., 699 S.W.3d 543 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024). “e hereby directed to show cause within thirty days why the Commission should not issue an order: (1) finding that [E]mployee died on April [13], 2017; (2) finding that [Wife] remained married to [E]mployee, that she was his sole dependent at the time of his death, and that she…”
Burgess v. Siegel-Robert Plating Co., 854 S.W.2d 859 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). “No notice of Claimant’s death was given, and the proceeding was not revived as required by § 287.580, RSMo 1986. On April 29, 1991, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found Claimant suffered five percent permanent partial disability as the result of his injuries.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.