 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Geery v. Travelers Insurance Company2/13/2003
no similar rule, however, in other instances where its rules are silent it has properly looked for guidance from the Rules of Civil Procedure. Murer v. Montana State Compensation Mut. Ins. Fund, 257 Mont. 434, 849 P.2d 1036, 1037 (1993). Neither party has discussed whether the rule can or should be applied, or proposed other standards. Similarly, neither party has discussed whether the alleged lack of authority of the claimant's attorney constitutes extrinsic fraud which gives rise to an independent action to set aside the judgment. See In re Marriage of Miller, 273 Mont. 286, 292, 902 P.2d 1019, 1022 (1995). Lacking argument, I decline to rule on the matter.
Moreover, the res judicata issue may be moot if in fact the claimant authorized his attorney to enter into the settlement stipulation or if in fact he ratified the agreement. An evidentiary hearing regarding authority and ratification should therefore be held. (Emphasis added.)
An evidentiary hearing has now been held and I have found as a matter of fact that claimant was aware of the settlement agreement and its contents, and that he authorized his attorney to execute the settlement. Claimant has argued vigorously that he did not sign the settlement agreement, and indeed he did not. Certainly, as I pointed out during the hearing, claimant's signature on the stipulation would have avoided this whole controversy, and I have since revised Court practice to require the claimant's signature on all settlement agreements filed with the Court. However, claimant's signature was not required. The only requirement, as set forth in my prior Decision and Order, was that claimant authorize his attorney to enter into the agreement. I have found as a matter of fact that he did, therefore the settlement agreement reached in the prior proceeding, as reflected in the Stipulation for Dismissal and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, is binding on claimant.
Moreover, even if claimant had not expressly authorized his attorney to enter into the settlement, his cashing the $6,400 check ratified the settlement. All three factors for ratification, as set forth in the prior Decision and Order, are met. First, claimant accepted the benefits of the settlement. Second, when he accepted those benefits he was aware that they were in full and final settlement, thus he had full knowledge of the facts. Third, his action in cashing the check showed his adoption of the agreement.
Since the claimant authorized the agreement, it can only be set aside for fraud or mistake of fact. Claimant has not alleged or shown a factual basis for setting aside the agreement. He merely claims that he was unaware of the terms of the settlement and did not authorize them, a claim that I have rejected. There is no basis for reopeing or setting aside the agreement.
Since the stipulation is valid, the judgment entered pursuant to the stipulation is res judicata with respect to claimant's request for compensation benefits. Hollister v. Forsythe, 277 Mont. 23, 27, 918 P.2d 665, 667 (1996). Accordingly, the claimant's request for further compensation benefits is barred.
PARTIAL JUDGMENT
The claimant's request for further compensation benefits, including but not limited to his requests for permanent partial and rehabilitation benefits, is barred by his prior settlement agreement with Travelers and by the judgment entered in his prior action in this Court, WCC No. 2000-0149. Therefore, his claim for compensation benefits is dismissed with prejudice.
The claimant's request for medical benefits is still pending. That matter will be set for trial on the next Missoula docket. A new scheduling order will issue
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.
|
|