 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Geery v. Travelers Insurance Company2/13/2003
of a 1992 claim and understands the significance of settling a case on a full and final basis. His testimony established that he was aware that the 1992 settlement precluded him from making any further claim for benefits with respect to the 1992 accident. Indeed, he testified that when Toole attempted to seek further 1992 benefits on his behalf he told Toole that the matter had been settled. The check stub accompanying the $6,400 check which claimant cashed contained the inscription "80% OF FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMEN ." (Ex. 13; Capitalization in original.) Claimant acknowledged that he received the check stub and read the inscription before he cashed the check. He further acknowledged that he was aware that his attorney was entitled to 20% of his benefits. He understood that the $6,400 he received, along with the 20% his attorney was to receive, represented 100% of what Travelers was paying. Claimant testified that even though he read the "full and final settlement" inscription it was not clear to him that the check was in full settlement of his "entire" case. He asserted that it did not occur to him that the check was to close out his entire case because he believed he was not at MMI (maximum medical improvement). He further testified that he thought the money was for weekly benefits due him. I did not find his explanation plausible and was not persuaded by it. Rather I am persuaded that at the time of the settlement and claimant's cashing of the check, he was aware that the $8,000 paid to him and Toole was in full and final settlement of his claim for further compensation benefits.
I find that Toole did in fact explain the settlement to claimant; that at the time the settlement was executed claimant was aware his claim for compensation benefits was being fulling and finally closed; and that claimant authorized Toole to enter into the settlement on his behalf.
I further find that claimant cashed the check for $6,400 with full knowledge that it was intended to fully and finally settle his claim for compensation benefits.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The industrial injury at issue in this case occurred on September 6, 1998. At that time, the 1997 version of the Montana Workers' Compensation Act was effective, therefore that version applies to his claim for benefits. Buckman v. Montana Deaconess Hospital, 224 Mont. 318, 321, 730 P.2d 380, 382 (1986).
Claimant in this action is seeking both compensation and medical benefits with respect to his 1998 injury . Travelers previously moved for partial summary judgment, urging that a prior settlement stipulation and judgment of this Court in WCC No. 2000-0149 barred his claim for compensation benefits. I denied the motion because of factual disputes regarding his attorney's authority to enter into the settlement agreement. Decision and Order Denying Motions to Compel and for Partial Summary Judgment (October 15, 2002). In denying the motion I concluded:
Claimant is correct that his hiring of an attorney did not confer settlement authority upon the attorney. "An attorney, as such, has no authority to compromise a controversy of his client, no matter what may be the difficulties involved, nor however advantageous the result may be to the client. A general retainer in a case does not imply such authority, and, if a compromise of the controversy be made, it must be made under special authority delegated for that purpose." Harris v. Root, 28 Mont. 159, 72 P. 429, 432 (1903); accord Webb v. First National Bank of Hinsdale, 219 Mont. 160, 165, 711 P.2d 1352, 1355 (1985).
Travelers has tendered no evidence showing that claimant in fact authorized his attorney to enter into the settlement, much
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|