 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Bailey9/15/2005
ntercounty Constr. Corp. v. District of Columbia, 443 A.2d 29, 33 (D.C. 1982)) (internal citation omitted). "Extrinsic evidence may include 'the circumstances before and contemporaneous with the making of the contract, all usages -habitual and customary practices - which either party knows or has reason to know, the circumstances surrounding the transaction and the course of conduct of the parties under the contract.'" Id. at 568 n.2. "Only if, after applying the rules of contract interpretation, the terms still are not subject to 'one definite meaning,' will the ambiguities be 'construed strongly against the drafter.'" Id. (quoting 1901 Wyoming Ave. Coop. Ass'n v. Lee, 345 A.2d 456, 463 (D.C. 1975)). The determination of ambiguity is a question of law which this court reviews de novo. Id. at 568.
An examination of the authorization shows that none of the provisions at issue here are ambiguous, although the agreement is poorly drafted. See Washington Props., Inc. v. Chin, Inc., 760 A.2d 546, 548 (D.C. 2000) ("A contract is not ambiguous merely because the parties dispute its meaning, nor is it ambiguous merely because its terms are complex or 'could have been clearer.'") First, the authorization states that, "I [Ms. Haile] authorize and direct you, my attorney [Mr. Bailey], to pay directly to said doctor [Dr. Garmon] such sums as may be due and owed to him for medical services rendered to me, my son, or daughter, and any other bills that are due this office which shall include fees for his appearance in court on my behalf (including those accrued after he has been placed on alert for purposes of court appearance, whether or not he actually makes that appearance)." There is nothing in this language that suggests that Dr. Garmon has a lien or was assigned an interest in the settlement funds with respect to his general treatment and diagnosis of Ms. Haile. It simply establishes that Mr. Bailey is directed to pay for the medical services provided to Ms. Haile by Dr. Garmon, that is, services for the diagnosis and treatment of her injuries, as well as fees for his appearance in court. This language does not specifically refer to the settlement funds as the source of payment. Thus, the plain meaning of this provision does not convey an interest in the settlement payments to Dr. Garmon, for medical services to Ms. Haile.
The next paragraph of the authorization states that,
If required as an expert witness, whether he testifies or not for reports made or depositions given in this matter, I [Ms. Haile] further authorize you, my attorney [Mr. Bailey], to withhold such sums from any settlements, judgments or verdicts as may be necessary to adequately protect said doctor and compensate him for his time and efforts on my behalf and also to institute a lien on this case to the said doctor against any and all proceeds for me, my son or daughter until the said doctor's medical bills for treatment of me, my son or daughter, fees for court appearance(s) (or time awaiting that appearance), deposition(s) are paid or he is compensated for his efforts on behalf of me, my son or daughter in connection herewith.
This paragraph clearly created a lien on the settlement funds in favor of Dr. Garmon. However, under its plain language, and as the Board argues, this paragraph is restricted to Dr. Garmon's services as an expert witness. This paragraph of the authorization did not describe Dr. Garmon's service as Ms. Haile's expert witness in terms of an "appearance in court." Rather, it covered "fees for court appearance(s) (or time awaiting that appearance)," "reports made or depositions given," as well as "medical bills for treatment."
As we have indicated, the authorization is poorly
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 District of Columbia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|