 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Eller v. Loram Maintenance of Way9/12/2000
bor and Industry on August 23, 1996. In this petition, the plaintiff is alleged to have sustained a herniated L5-S1 disc. The plaintiff received temporary total benefits from April 28, 1995, to June 5, 1995, and temporary partial benefits from June 5, 1995, through October 19, 1995, from presumably Liberty Mutual in Maryland. Thus, payments continued to the plaintiff after he was put on notice that the claims for benefits were being paid pursuant to Maryland law in June 1995. This acceptance is coupled with Ventura's letter of September 1, 1995, acknowledging that Maryland had jurisdiction to pay workers' compensation benefits.
As to the Pennsylvania claim for benefits, the plaintiff contends that he was unaware of where the benefits came from and that he believed the benefits for the injury of November 1995, were being paid through Minnesota. The deposition of Jennifer Bradley, a claims adjustor for Liberty Mutual Insurance Company in Pennsylvania, established that Liberty Mutual paid partial disability loss wage and medical expenses for the plaintiff's injury of November 1994. However, the record is unclear as to when these payments were made. The record does reflect that Bradley was contacted by the plaintiff in April 1995, about some unpaid medical expenses. Whether these expenses were incurred in Pennsylvania or Maryland is unclear. In March 1996, Liberty Mutual filed a petition to terminate workers' compensation benefits on the basis that the plaintiff had returned to work in December 1995, with no loss earnings. We cannot determine from the record that the plaintiff received any benefits after hiring Mr. Ventura. However, from the letters written to adjustors and attorneys in Pennsylvania, Ventura was questioning these authorities as to why the plaintiff should not receive additional workers' compensation benefits. Also, this problem is compounded by the fact that Ventura sought a continuance in a legal proceeding, which was to determine if the plaintiff's workers' compensation benefits should be terminated. Although the plaintiff raises Mr. Ventura's lack of experience in Pennsylvania and Maryland as a reason for certain actions, we agree with the defendant that the plaintiff is bound by the actions of his duly-employed attorney. See Simmons v. O'Charley's, Inc., 914 S.W.2d 895 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. 1995); Bellar v. Baptist Hospital, Inc., 559 S.W.2d 788, 789 (Tenn. 1978). The record supports the trial court's ruling and we see no reason to disagree.
The trial court's judgment is affirmed and the costs are taxed against the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT
This case is before the Court upon the entire record, including the order of referral to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, and the Panel's memorandum Opinion setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are incorporated herein by reference;
Whereupon, it appears to the Court that the memorandum Opinion of the Panel should be accepted and approved; and
It is, therefore, ordered that the Panel's findings of facts and conclusions of law are adopted and affirmed and the decision of the Panel is made the Judgment of the Court.
Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellant, Clayton Eller and Philip D. Burnett, surety, for which execution may issue if necessary.
|