 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Whiting v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co.12/29/1998
APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: JOHN J. DiMOTTO, Judge. Affirmed.
Christine Whiting appeals from an order declaring that a settlement of $80,000.00 she accepted as a complete resolution of her personal injury claim against her employer, Executive Club Limited and Otis Elevator, was subject to distribution under § 102.29(1), Stats., to satisfy a claim from the employer's worker 's compensation carrier, Continental Casualty Company, for its payment to her of $10,272.32 for medical expenses caused by her accident at work. Whiting contends that the circuit court erred by denying her motion to restrict Continental's claim against her settlement under § 102.29(1) to that part of the settlement attributable to the underlying jury award of $10,000.00 allocated for past medical and hospital expenses. Statutory interpretation and case law compel the Conclusion that the whole of Whiting's settlement is subject to distribution. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's order.
I.
The relevant facts are undisputed. Whiting was injured at work while dragging mail bags onto an elevator. Whiting filed a worker 's compensation claim, and Continental paid $10,272.32 in medical benefits. Continental did not make any payments for temporary or permanent disability and refused to make any payments for future medical expenses. Whiting subsequently filed a third-party tort action, and the jury returned a verdict awarding Whiting $10,000.00 for past medical expenses, $4,000.00 for future medical expenses, $35,000.00 for past pain, suffering and disability, and $70,000.00 for future pain, suffering and disability. The jury found Whiting, the employer and Otis Elevator each one-third causally negligent. Whiting accepted $80,000.00 in settlement of her claim and then moved the court to identify that portion of the settlement subject to recovery by Continental under § 102.29(1), Stats. The trial court concluded that the whole of Whiting's settlement was subject to distribution.
II.
This case involves the application of § 102.29(1), Stats., to a set of undisputed facts, and thus presents a question of law that we decide without deference to the Conclusions of the trial court. See Nichols v. Bennett, 199 Wis.2d 268, 272-73, 544 N.W.2d 428, 430 (1996).
Section 102.29(1), Stats., provides in pertinent part:
"If notice is given as provided in this subsection, the liability of the tort-feasor shall be determined as to all parties having a right to make claim, and irrespective of whether or not all parties join in prosecuting such claim, the proceeds of such claim shall be divided as follows: After deducting the reasonable cost of collection, one-third of the remainder shall in any event be paid to the injured employe or the employe's personal representative or other person entitled to bring action. Out of the balance remaining, the employer, insurance carrier or, if applicable, uninsured employers fund shall be reimbursed for all payments made by it, or which it may be obligated to make in the future, under this chapter, except that it shall not be reimbursed for any payments of increased compensation made or to be made under s. 102.18 (1) (bp), 102.22, 102.35 (3), 102.57 or 102.60. Any balance remaining shall be paid to the employe or the employe's personal representative or other person entitled to bring action."
This section governs worker's compensation claims where a third party, in this case Otis Elevator and its insurer, is sued for tortious conduct. See Gerth v. American Star Ins. Co., 166 Wis.2d 1000, 1012, 480 N.W.2d 836, 841 (Ct. App. 1992). An insurer filing a claim under § 102.29(1), Stats., like Cont
Page 1 2 Wisconsin Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|