 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gamez v. Brush Wellman9/27/2001
Appellants Rudy and Alice Gamez challenge the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee Brush Wellman, Inc. , Rudy's for mer employer. The Gamezes argue that the trial court er red in rejecting their claims for wilful misconduct, breach of contract, and bad faith stemming from Rudy's employment-related exposure to beryllium. They also challenge the trial court's award of sanctions against them for refusing to accept an offer of judgment. We affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Brush Wellman, but vacate the court's award of sanctions against the Gamezes.
When reviewing the grant of a motion for summary judgment, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Southwest Auto Painting & Body Repair, Inc. v. Binsfeld, 183 Ar iz. 444, 904 P. 2d 1268 (App. 1995). Rudy began working for Brush Wellman in a production facility in October 1991. After a drill bit punctured Rudy's finger, blood tests revealed that, although he had not developed chronic beryllium disease (CBD), Rudy had possibly been sensitized to beryllium. As a result, Rudy accepted Brush Wellman's offer that he transfer to a different job , but he subsequently decided to return to his production position. After Rudy was diagnosed with CBD in 1995, Brush Wellman offered to transfer him to an alter native position or pay him one year's wages and benefits if he would voluntarily leave his employment. Although Rudy never selected either option, he did not return to the work place after his CBD diagnosis. Brush Wellman continued to pay Rudy wages and benefits until March 1998.
The Gamezes sued Brush Wellman in June 1996 for wilful misconduct, contending that Brush Wellman had "engaged in course of conduct knowing that such conduct was likely to cause extreme physical, financial and emotional hardship to Plaintiffs. " They later amended their complaint to add claims for breach of contract and bad faith. The trial court granted summary judgment on all three claims and awarded costs in the amount of $65,121.58 to Brush Wellman as a sanction pursuant to Rule 68, Ar iz. R. Civ. P. , 16 A. R.S. , P t. 2.
Summary judgment should be granted if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(c), 16 A. R.S. , P t. 2; Sanchez v. City of Tucson, 191 Ar iz. 128, 953 P. 2d 168 (1998). We review questions of law, including the inter pretation of statutes and constitutional issues, and mixed questions of fact and law de novo. In re United States Currency in the Amount of $26,980. 00, 193 Ariz. 427, 973 P.2d 1184 (App. 1998); Birth Hope Adoption Agency, Inc. v. Doe, 190 Ariz. 285, 947 P.2d 859 (App. 1997). We conclude that the trial court did not err in applying the law to the undisputed material facts.
The Gamezes first contend that Rudy's injury resulted fr om Brush Wellman's wilful misconduct and, thus, that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Brush Wellman on this claim. It is well settled that work-related injure y claims are generally redressed exclusively under Arizona's workers' compensation scheme. A. R.S. § 23-1022. Thus, such claims are controlled by A. R.S. § 23-1024(A), which provides that " n employee . . . who accepts [workers'] compensation waives the right to exer cise any option to institute proceedings in court against his employer." See Anderson v. Industrial Comm'n, 147 Ar iz. 456, 711 P. 2d 595 (1985). However, article XVIII, § 8, of the Arizona Constitution allows an employee who would otherwise be barred by the workers' compensation exclusivity provision to sue his or her employer if the employee ha
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|