Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Acuff

• Decision Date: 03 August 2006
• Docket Number: No. 2005-CA-00388-SCT.,2005-CA-00388-SCT.
• Citation: 950 So.2d 947
• Parties: ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. Phillip ACUFF, Charles W. Brown, William Carlisle, James M. Carpenter, Lamar Clark, C.H. Cobb, Hubert Deer, William R. Johnston, Dan C. Jones, Clythus Mason, Charlie E. McNeil, Johnny W. Mitchell, York Sit, Charles R. Warren, Lester Ray Warren, and Willie Woodberry and James Expose v. Illinois Central Railroad Company.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

950 So.2d 947

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. Phillip ACUFF, Charles W. Brown, William Carlisle, James M. Carpenter, Lamar Clark, C.H. Cobb, Hubert Deer, William R. Johnston, Dan C. Jones, Clythus Mason, Charlie E. McNeil, Johnny W. Mitchell, York Sit, Charles R. Warren, Lester Ray Warren, and Willie Woodberry and James Expose v. Illinois Central Railroad Company.

No. 2005-CA-00388-SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

August 3, 2006.

Rehearing Denied October 12, 2006.

Lonnie D. Bailey, Glenn F. Beckham, Greenwood, Thomas R. Peters, Edward Blackmon, Jr., Canton, attorneys for appellant.

Thomas W. Brock, Mccomb, William S. Guy, attorneys for appellees.

Before WALLER, P.J., EASLEY and DICKINSON, JJ.

DICKINSON, Justice, for the Court.

¶ 1. This appeal and cross-appeal arise from the circuit court's denial of a railroad company's motion to dismiss its employees' asbestos-related injury claims and the court's subsequent order enforcing the settlement agreement between the parties. The railroad argues the circuit court erred by not dismissing the employees' claims based on their submission of false affidavits, the execution of prior releases covering the asbestos-related injury claims, the expiration of the statute of limitations, and the discovery of medical information showing certain employees did not suffer from asbestos-related diseases when they filed their claims. The cross-appeal arises from the circuit court's denial of one plaintiff's asbestos-injury claim based on his execution of a prior release.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

¶ 2. This case was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Mississippi, on April 2, 2001, as Elbert Eakins, et al. v. Illinois Central Railroad Company ("Eakins"), under the Federal Employers Liability Act ("FELA"), 45 U.S.C. §§ 51 et seq. The employees are 17 of the 175 Eakins plaintiffs who allege they contracted diseases as a result of their exposure to asbestos while employed with Illinois Central Railroad Company ("ICRR"). On August 6, 2002, the parties agreed to a Settlement Procedure under which the Eakins plaintiffs, including Appellees, would be paid¹ after submitting certain information to ICRR, including the "Illinois Central Pulmonary Questionnaire," employment and healthcare information, and certain medical records. Upon receipt of sufficient documentation, ICRR was to pay each plaintiff a predetermined amount based on the illness attributable to asbestos exposure and employment with ICRR.

¶ 3. Although ICRR paid a number of claims pursuant to this process, the Eakins plaintiffs filed a Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement on June 19, 2003, due to a lag in many payments. Soon after, ICRR voiced concerns about the documentation provided by some of the plaintiffs. One plaintiff, Fred Taylor, had submitted inaccurate and incomplete answers to a question about prior litigation in his Pulmonary Questionnaire, and ICRR learned he had been diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness more than three years before Eakins was filed. He was later dismissed voluntarily based on ICRR's statute of limitations defense.

¶ 4. On March 29, 2004, the Eakins plaintiffs' counsel offered to provide ICRR with affidavits from all remaining unsettled plaintiffs detailing their involvement in prior asbestos litigation. After ICRR received the supplemental documentation, it discovered that most of the affidavits, including those from the employees here, omitted the affiant's involvement in at least one additional asbestos case. ICRR moved to compel compliance and for related relief.

¶ 5. Circuit Judge Lamar Pickard conducted hearings on the settlement issues on June 21, August 2, and October 15, 2004. Both ICRR and the employees agreed to have Judge Pickard determine all issues of both law and fact. ICRR asserted the inaccurate affidavits required dismissal of the employees' actions, prior releases barred thirteen employees' asbestos-injury claims,² the statute of limitations had run on two employees, and subsequent tests performed on three employees invalidated their claims.

¶ 6. The circuit court ruled the inaccurate information in the affidavits did not prejudice ICRR, and even if the omitted information had been included, that information would not have aided ICRR in any of its defenses. The court also found the prior releases did not bar any of the plaintiffs' claims, the statute of limitations had not run on plaintiffs Hubert Deer and Willie Mobley, and subsequent medical tests did not bar the claims of plaintiffs Charles McNeil, Lester Warren, and Willie Woodberry.

¶ 7. On December 6, 2004, the circuit court entered an order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and denying ICRR's Motion to Compel Compliance with March 29, 2004 Agreement and Supplement and to Dismiss Certain Claims. The court also certified the order as a final judgment pursuant to M.R.C.P. 54(b). Based, in part, on newly-discovered evidence allegedly showing the intentional nature of the employees' affidavit omissions, ICRR requested reconsideration of the order. After a hearing, the circuit court denied ICRR's Motion to Reconsider by order dated January 28, 2005.

¶ 8. ICRR timely filed its notice of appeal and plaintiff James Expose appealed from the dismissal of his claim based on a prior release.

ISSUES ON APPEAL/CROSS-APPEAL

¶ 9. ICRR presents five issues for this Court's consideration on appeal:

I. Whether the circuit court erred when it granted the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement agreement and failed to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims because of the plaintiffs' submission of false affidavits and sworn Pulmonary Questionnaires.

II. Alternatively, whether the circuit court erred when it refused to reconsider its December 6, 2004, Order based on newly-discovered evidence.

III. Alternatively, whether the circuit court erred when it failed to dismiss the claims of certain plaintiffs who had previously released their claims against ICRR.

IV. Alternatively, whether the circuit court erred when it failed to dismiss the claims of certain plaintiffs that are barred by the three-year FELA statute of limitations.

V. Alternatively, whether the circuit court erred when it failed to dismiss the claims of certain plaintiffs who had medical tests subsequent to their asbestos-screening which demonstrated they suffered no asbestos-related illnesses.

¶ 10. On cross-appeal, plaintiff James Expose presents one issue for our consideration: Whether the circuit court erred in ruling that his carpal tunnel release, signed while this asbestos claim was pending, also released his asbestos injury claim.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 11. In the proceedings below, both ICRR and the employees agreed to have Judge Pickard determine all issues of both law and fact. "`A circuit judge sitting without a jury is accorded the same deference with regard to his findings as a chancellor,' and his findings are safe on appeal where they are supported by substantial, credible, and reasonable evidence." City of Jackson v. Perry, 764 So.2d 373, 376 (Miss.2000) (quoting Puckett v. Stuckey, 633 So.2d 978, 982 (Miss. 1993)). We may not disturb Judge Pickard's findings unless he was clearly erroneous or abused his discretion. Howard v. TotalFina E & P USA, Inc., 899 So.2d 882, 888 (Miss.2005). We employ de novo review for questions of law. Maldonado v. Kelly, 768 So.2d 906, 908 (Miss.2000).

DISCUSSION

I. Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and ICRR's Motion to Dismiss

¶ 12. ICRR argues the circuit court committed reversible error by granting the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement agreement in light of false affidavits and questionnaires submitted by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs assert the omissions were inadvertent, inconsequential, and did not prejudice ICRR.

August 2, 2002, Settlement Procedure

¶ 13. The Settlement Procedure required the Eakins plaintiffs to submit information to ICRR for its review before payments could be made. This included the "Illinois Central Pulmonary Questionnaire," a sworn document requesting information on the plaintiff's employment, medical, and litigation history. The "Litigation" section asked about claims filed against ICRR or any asbestos manufacturer. During pre-settlement discussions, the plaintiffs voiced concerns about the questionnaire, but ICRR told them to do the best they could filling out the forms, as "this would be sufficient."

¶ 14. ICRR's purpose in obtaining the information on the questionnaire was to verify the claimed disease, confirm employment with ICRR, identify statute of limitations issues, and determine any defenses raised by prior releases. At one point, the agreement explained ICRR could raise defenses "as to length of employment, questions regarding prior releases, questions raised regarding the statute of limitations, or other issues not currently envisioned by the parties." When specifically addressing potential defenses, the agreement noted, "where information is developed that a particular plaintiff's case may be barred by reason of a statute of limitations issue, by reason of a prior release, or failure to establish the plaintiff as an employee of [ICRR]," and ICRR could reject such cases, pending negotiation. The next paragraph repeated these three defenses.

April 22, 2004, Supplemental Agreement

¶ 15. Many claims were settled pursuant to the Settlement Procedure, but ICRR discovered a problem with some plaintiffs' answers in the "Litigation" section of the questionnaire. Specifically, ICRR learned that Fred Taylor was also a plaintiff in an unreported case, Cosey v. E.D. Bullard, and that he had been diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease in 1995.

¶ 16. When confronted with ICRR's concerns about plaintiffs failing to disclose their involvement in other asbestos lawsuits, plaintiffs' counsel offered to provide affidavits from the remaining plaintiffs concerning their involvement in...