Injury to Lea, Matter of
Decision Date | 23 October 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 84-171,84-171 |
Citation | 707 P.2d 754 |
Parties | In the Matter of INJURY TO Thomas B. LEA. Thomas B. LEA, Appellant (Employee), v. D & S CASING SERVICE, INC., Appellee (Employer). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Willis Geer, Gillette, for appellant.
Paul J. Drew, Gillette, for appellee.
Before THOMAS, C.J., and ROSE, ROONEY, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.
Appellant Lea seeks review of the district court's refusal to award him further worker's compensation benefits. Appellant and his employer, appellee D & S Casing Service, Inc., entered into a stipulation settling the amount of worker's compensation benefits the employer would pay for appellant's injury. When appellant's award ran out, he petitioned the district court to reopen his case, seeking additional benefits under § 27-12-606, W.S.1977 (June 1983 Replacement). The district court denied appellant's petition and appellant seeks review of that decision stating the issue thusly:
"Appellant believes that the primary issue in this appeal is whether an injured employee should be prevented from reopening his worker's compensation file for payment of additional necessary medical benefits solely for the reason that he previously had entered into a stipulation with his employer limiting the amount of medical benefits to be paid and stipulating that the employee would not seek further benefits as a result of his injury."
Appellee states the issues as follows:
We will affirm.
The facts show that appellant was injured on January 24, 1981, while in the employ of appellee D & S Casing Service, Inc., resulting in the loss of appellant's left thumb. A pollicization was performed on appellant to move his index finger in place of the thumb.
Appellee/employer objected in part to appellant's application for worker's compensation award. Both parties subsequently entered into a "Stipulation for Permanent Disability Benefits" and the court specifically approved the agreement and ordered:
When such amounts were apparently depleted, appellant continued to submit claims in excess of the stipulated $2,000 amount. After a hearing on the matter, the district court entered its "Final Order of Award" on November 17, 1982, finding:
Appellant did not appeal this "Final Order of Award," but filed a petition to reopen the case several months later on May 2, 1984. This petition was denied, resulting in the present appeal.
Appellant claims he should be entitled to reopen his case contending the stipulation and order he entered into with appellee stipulating to damages was contrary to Art. 10, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution 1 as well as § 27-1-105, W.S.1977 (June 1983 Replacement) 2 and § 27-12-103(b), W.S.1977 (June 1983 Replacement). 3 Suffice it to say, it is clear from the express language of such provisions that they are not applicable to the stipulation and order in this case. This was not an agreement "waiving any right to recover damages for causing the death or injury of any employee" prohibited by Art. 10, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution, nor was it an agreement which was required by appellant's employer as a condition of employment releasing the employer from liability for personal injuries caused by the employer's negligence prohibited by § 27-1-105.
As further authority for appellant's proposition that the stipulation and order was void, he cites Horvath v. Sheridan-Wyoming Coal Company, 58 Wyo. 211, 131 P.2d 315 (1942). In that case, the injured employee and the employer entered into an oral agreement whereby the employee agreed to " 'forego and abandon his right to Workmen's Compensation allowances arising from the injuries received by him while employed by the Company,' " in exchange for the employer's promise to provide the employee with light work the rest of his life. Id., 131 P.2d at 316. This court held the contract invalid in view of the constitutional and statutory provisions of the worker's compensation law prohibiting contracts which relieve an employer from any liability created by the act.
We find the facts and circumstances in this case readily distinguishable from the Harvath case. In the present case, the stipulation and order did not operate to relieve the employer from liability under the act; rather, the employer accepted liability for appellant's worker's compensation claims and the parties agreed to an amount thereby settling a dispute pending before the court.
One authority has stated:
"The general rule * * * is that, in the absence of any provision to the contrary, claims for compensation for injuries, payable under workmen's compensation statutes, may be compromised and settled as in other cases. * * * " 82 Am.Jur.2d, Workmen's Compensation § 459, pp. 223-224 (1976).
See also, Brigham Young University v. Industrial Commission of Utah, 74 Utah 349, 279 P. 889, 65 A.L.R. 152 (1929), wherein the court held an agreement between the employer and employee settling the controversy for less than the amount of worker's compensation awarded valid and stated:
" * * * The right of parties sui juris to settle their own controversy and avoid litigation is a valuable and absolute right, and may be exercised by them under all circumstances, unless the state, under a proper exercise of police power, has circumscribed, restricted, or prohibited it. * * * " Id., 279 P. at 893.
If appellant was successful in his attempt to reopen the case, he would then seek the award of additional benefits under § 27-12-606, W.S.1977 (June 1983 Replacement), which provides:
"Where an award of compensation has been made in favor of or on behalf of an employee for any benefits under this act [ §§ 27-12-101 through 27-12-804], an application may be made to the clerk of district court by any party within four (4) years from the date of the last award, or at any time during which monthly payments under an award are being made, for additional benefits of any type or nature or for a modification of the amount of the award on the ground of increase or decrease of incapacity due solely to the injury, or upon grounds of mistake or fraud."
However, it does not appear that appellant is seeking such additional benefits based on any of the criteria prescribed by the statute. He states in his brief:
We have held that an employee seeking award of additional benefits bears the burden of proving that additional benefits are justified. Prentice Clark House v. State ex rel. Worker's Compensation Division, Wyo., 701 P.2d 1162 (1985); and Matter of Abas, Wyo., 701 P.2d 1153 (1985). We find appellant has not articulated a sound basis for the award of additional benefits under § 27-12-606.
More significantly, however, is the fact that appellant may be without standing to challenge the validity of the stipulation entered into in the present case because he failed to appeal the district court's ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gibson v. Wal-Mart Stores, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
... ... health insurance (secured through Wal-Mart) would not cover her medical expenses because her injury was work-related. Later that day, Gibson went to the store manager, Gary Powers, and asked to sign ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). When applying this standard, we examine the evidence in the light ... Accordingly, the Agreement does not run afoul of Article 10, § 4. See Lea v. D&S Casing Serv., Inc. (In re Lea), 707 P.2d 754, 755-56 (Wyo. 1985) (holding that a stipulation ... ...
-
Thompson v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div.
... ... THIS MATTER having come before the Court pursuant to the February 24, 1987 Stipulation of the parties, the ... benefits relating to his alleged vocational disability resulting from his original injury, as have been or are now claimed by the Employee-Claimant ... On May 20, 1987, ... Id., 343 P.2d at 512 (emphasis added). In Lea v. D & S Casing Service, Inc., 707 P.2d 754 (Wyo.1985), this Court also followed the general rule ... ...
-
Herring v. Welltech, Inc.
... ... settling the amount of worker's compensation benefits the employer would pay for appellant's injury. Appellant appeals from the order of the district court denying his petition to reopen the case ... Lea v. D & S Casing Service, Inc., Wyo., 707 P.2d 754 (1985), generally controls the decision in this ... ...