 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Ottumwa v. Poole9/1/2004
lso contends that Lockwood misrepresented his entitlement to future medical benefits. Poole's testimony at trial with respect to the settlement offer was as follows:
Q: You called Toni Lockwood in response to that letter?
A: That's correct.
Q: And you accepted the offer of settlement?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Okay you said that when you read that letter you felt the only thing you were going to get was doctor ratings. Do you remember saying that?
A: That's correct, because that's what the letter said.
Q: However, she was offering more than what the doctor ratings were, correct?
A: That additional four percent?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And then when you called her up to accept the offer, she said, "you should feel free to make a counter instead of accepting the offer," correct?
A: There were some words to that effect. I don't recall the exact words, sir.
To shortcut the length of cross-examination, the city offered a portion of Poole's deposition testimony, which was accepted by stipulation. Included in that testimony was the following:
Q: ... Let me back up and go over this one more time. You would agree with me that the letter offers you 10 percent of the body less the amount of PPD paid at the time of the settlement? You agree that that's what it offers?
A: Yes.
Q. Then it tells you that 10 percent just by itself would be, correct, 50 weeks?
A: Okay. And it said that I was getting $10,699.
Q: That tells you how much 10 percent is by itself; correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Then it tells you how much will be subtracted from the 10 percent, which is the amount that's been paid so far.
A: Once again, sir, I don't feel that that states it's going to be subtracted. See, that's what was confusing me and that's why I called Toni was because I thought I was going to get that in addition, and the more I read it, the more confused I got. That's why I called Toni for clarification.
Q: Okay.
A: And that's when I got the clarification.
Q: You got the letter and you called Toni to talk to her about the offer?
A: After I had read this over and over trying to understand it.
Q: So you call up Toni.
A: Uh-huh.
Q: Can you tell me what you recall of the conversation.
A: I apologized for bothering her and told her I had a stupid question, that the more I read this, the more confused I got and could she explain it to me. That's when she read it through to me that I was only going to get this and that it was based upon what the doctors have said, this 10 percent.
Q: And when you say only get this, you're referring to 10 percent minus whatever permanency has been paid already?
A: Yes. And I, once again, asked her about, "Does this mean also that I don't get any future medical benefits?" And she told me, "Yes."
(Emphasis added.)
We find, based on Poole's own testimony, that the discussion of future medical benefits to which he refers was with regard to the terms of the settlement offer. It did not pertain to his potential entitlement in a litigated setting. We find on our de novo review that Poole has failed to establish grounds for rescission of the settlement based on either false representations or a failure to make required disclosures. The district court erred in rescinding the settlement agreement. The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed. The decree of the district court is r
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|