 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Oens v. Employee Benefits Insurance Company6/5/2003
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment. Respondent argues the two-year statute of limitations set out at section 27-2-203, MCA, bars claimant's request to set aside a 1985 settlement agreement on the ground of mutual mistake of fact.
Uncontroverted Facts
The respondent tenders the following facts in support of its motion. These facts are not disputed by claimant.
1. Petitioner [claimant] was employed by Rocky Mountain Log Homes, Inc. ("Rocky Mountain") on October 31, 1983. During the course of his employment for Rocky Mountain, Petitioner sustained an injury to his back and neck while moving and stacking logs.
2. At the time of Petitioner's injury, Rocky Mountain Log Homes, Inc., was insured for purposes of workers compensation by Respondent, Employee Benefits Insurance Co. Respondent accepted liability for Petitioner's injury and paid various medical benefits and disability benefits.
3. On January 27, 1985, Petitioner and Respondent reached an agreement to settle the Petitioner's claim for his October 31, 1983 injury. A petition for full and final compromise settlement was executed by the parties and filed with the Insurance Compliance Bureau of the Workers' Compensation Division. [See Exhibit A to Respondent/Insurer's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.]
4. On February 15, 1985, the Insurance Compliance Bureau approved the petition for full and final compromise settlement. [See Exhibit B to Respondent/Insurer's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.] That order was transmitted by the Insurance Compliance Bureau to the Workers' Compensation Court. On February 20, 1985, Timothy W. Reardon, Judge of the Workers' Compensation Court, entered an order approving the full and final compromise settlement. [See Exhibit C to Respondent/Insurer's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.]
5. Prior to the settlement, Petitioner had surgery to his cervical spine to treat his injury. [See First Amended Petition, 3.]
6. Petitioner had a second surgery for a fusion at the C6-7 level of his cervical spine on July 3, 1985 by Richard Lehman, M.D. in Alaska. [See Exhibit D to Respondent/Insurer's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.]
7. Petitioner has had continuing problems with his cervical spine in the years since his original injury in 1983.
8. In his First Amended Petition for Benefits, Petitioner now seeks to have the settlement of his October 31, 1983 injury set aside on the grounds of mutual mistake.
9. Petitioner bases his claim upon the fact that when he resumed treatment with James Burton, M.D. in 2001 he was advised all of his ongoing neck symptoms were related to the original injury in 1983. [See First Amended Petition, 5.] Dr. Burton noted in his March 13, 2001 office note that Petitioner was having problems at the C4-5 level which resulted from the previous fusions at C5-6 and C6-7. [See Exhibit E to Respondent/Insurer's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.]
(Respondent/Insurer's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment at 1-2.)
Petitioner adds other alleged "facts" to the mix and argues that the facts cited by respondent do not as a matter of law establish that his claim is barred. He points out that his 1984, pre-settlement diagnosis was "C5-6 degenerative disc disease," but his 1985, post-settlement surgery was at the C6-7 level. (Response to Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment at 2.) He emphasizes that the insurer refused over the years to pay medical benefits relating to his neck, telling him his post-settlement treatment was not related to
Page 1 2 3 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|