 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
C&K;Industrial Services11/20/1997
JUDGMENT: Affirmed.
C&K;Industrial Services, plaintiff-appellant, appeals a decision by the trial court in favor of Julie Smith, defendant- appellee, in a declaratory judgment action. Julie Smith filed the action as guardian of her minor son, David Smith, to recover money she claims C&K;agreed to pay in settlement of a wrongful death suit brought against C&K;in connection with the death of David Smith's father, Stephen Polivka, in an industrial accident. C&K;assigns the following error for our review:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFENDANT- APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND THEREBY HOLDING THAT IT LACKED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO DECIDE A COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WHICH SEEKS A FINDING THAT A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN REACHED IN A MATTER BETWEEN THE PARTIES PENDING IN THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION (REGARDING A CLAIM FOR A VIOLATION OF A SAFETY REQUIREMENT [ VSSR ]).
Having reviewed the record and the legal arguments of the parties, we affirm the decision of the trial court. The apposite facts follow.
On July 9, 1994, C&K;employee Stephen Polivka was killed in an industrial accident. Julie Smith, Guardian of David Smith, retained the law firm of Jones & McArtor and filed a claim for benefits with the Industrial Commission for the State of Ohio alleging C&K;had violated specific safety requirements.
A pre-trial hearing was scheduled for April 10, 1996 before the Industrial Commission. A notice of hearing was sent to the parties advising them that attendance at the hearing was mandatory. Attached to the notice was a list of the matters to be discussed at the hearing. The list of issues to be discussed included Are the parties considering/engaged in settlement negotiations? and If so, how much additional time (i.e. 30 to 60 days) is needed to CONCLUDE the negotiations?
The hearing was held as scheduled but neither Smith nor her attorneys appeared. Anita Looser, an employee at Jones & McArtor attended the hearing via telephone and explained that Smith's attorneys were unable to attend because they were out of town. When the hearing officer asked Looser if she wished to present a settlement offer on behalf of Smith, Looser replied that the firm`s demand was $4,500. C&K;accepted the demand. A settlement entry was prepared by the hearing officer and signed by C&K; C&K;sent Smith a check for $4500. However, Smith returned the check and refused to sign the settlement entry.
C&K;filed a declaratory judgment action asking the trial court to find that the case had been settled for $4500. Smith moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Looser did not have authority to settle the case and that her statement demanding $4500 was an unintentional misstatement of Smith's prior demand for $45,000 which had previously been communicated to C&K; Smith also alleged the settlement had not been approved by the Industrial Commission and that Smith never signed the settlement agreement. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, noting that the matter was currently pending before the Industrial Commission. This appeal followed.
C&K;argues the trial court erroneously dismissed its declaratory judgment complaint. C&K;argues the question of whether the case had been properly settled was an issue that could appropriatelybe determined through a declaratory judgment despite the fact that the Industrial Commission did not reach a final decision in the parties' dispute. Smith argues that, because the case was still pending before the Industrial Commission, declaratory judgment relief was unavailable.
In Jones v. Chagrin Falls
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|