A worker died because of an alleged occupational illness and his widow sought workers’ compensation death benefits for herself and for her son, who was the stepson of the worker. His employer initially denied benefits. While the widow’s case was still pending in court, she died. Her son, the worker’s stepson, filed an amended complaint to receive the death benefits for her estate and himself.

Steven Stamps worked for Trinity Marine Products and died in October 2011. His widow, Marilyn Stamps, filed for benefits because she said he contracted a lung disease on the job that contributed to his death. She named her son Steven Cozel as an eligible beneficiary because he was dependent on Mr. Stamps at the time of his death. Trinity denied that his death was work-related and did not award benefits to either Marilyn Stamps or Steven Cozel. They said Cozel was not a dependent child of Mr. Stamps.

When Marilyn Stamps died, Mr. Cozel filed an amended complaint that sought benefits for her estate and for himself as a dependent child. He was denied again, because the employer said he could only obtain benefits through his mother’s estate and since her benefits were never approved while she was alive he could not pursue continuing benefits as a dependent.

The case went up to the Supreme Court of Tennessee Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel, who decided that Ms. Stamps and Mr. Cozel were in fact eligible to seek workers’ compensation death benefits. Though the employer said that any right to pursue benefits was terminated when Ms. Stamps (the surviving spouse) died, including the right for beneficiaries to continue to seek benefits that had been denied her, the court decided otherwise. The employer argued that they should not be paying (now-accrued) benefits to her estate because that was essentially passing on compensation to heirs. The court said if Ms. Stamps had still been alive she would have standing to seek benefits and would have received benefits, and so the employer could not deny her estate the benefits she would have been receiving.

Part of the court’s decision read “Justice will not be served by denying benefits to those rightfully entitled to receive them merely because they fail to live long enough to survive delays inherent in the judicial process”.