Miller v. Mont. State Fund

Decision Date25 November 2020
Docket NumberWCC No. 2020-5145
PartiesMICHAEL MILLER Petitioner v. MONTANA STATE FUND Respondent/Insurer.
CourtMontana Workers Compensation Court
ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT AND DISMISSING PETITIONER'S TORT CLAIMS

Summary: For the third time in this Court, Petitioner seeks to rescind his 1988 settlement agreement with Respondent. Petitioner also seeks relief from a Judgment and Order that this Court entered in 2001, which adjudged that the parties had fully and finally settled Petitioner's 1983 workers' compensation claim. Petitioner also makes tort claims and prays for damages. Respondent moves for summary judgment, asserting that Petitioner's claims to rescind their 1988 settlement agreement are barred by the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel.

Held: This Court granted summary judgment to Respondent on Petitioner's claims to rescind their 1988 settlement agreement under the doctrine of res judicata because Petitioner litigated identical claims to final judgment in his second case against Respondent. Indeed, in Petitioner's second case, this Court ruled that these claims were barred by res judicata because Petitioner could have litigated them in his first case against Respondent, in which Petitioner also sought to rescind their 1988 settlement agreement. These claims remain barred by res judicata. This Court dismissed Petitioner's tort claims because this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over tort claims.

¶ 1 For the third time in this Court, Petitioner Michael Miller seeks to rescind his 1988 settlement agreement with Respondent Montana State Fund (State Fund). Miller also seeks relief from a Judgment and Order this Court entered in 2001, in which this Court adjudged that the parties had fully and finally settled Miller's 1983 workers' compensation claim. He also brings tort claims and prays for damages.

¶ 2 State Fund moves for summary judgment, asserting that Miller's claims to rescind their 1988 settlement agreement are barred by the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel because Miller has already litigated these claims and issues against it.

¶ 3 Miller opposes State Fund's motion but does not address State Fund's res judicata or collateral estoppel defenses. Instead, he asserts that his claims to rescind their 1988 settlement agreement are timely, asserting that no statute of limitations applies when the grounds for seeking rescission is mistake of law.

¶ 4 This Court grants summary judgment to State Fund on Miller's claims to rescind their 1988 settlement agreement because his claims are barred by res judicata. This Court also dismisses Miller's tort claims. State Fund did not move for summary judgment on Miller's claim regarding their 2001 settlement agreement and the resulting Judgment and Order; thus, this Court makes no ruling on the merits of that claim.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS

¶ 5 On October 23, 1983, Miller suffered a closed head injury in the course of his employment.

¶ 6 State Fund accepted liability for Miller's claim.

¶ 7 On September 20, 1988, Miller and State Fund reached a compromise settlement agreement over their disputes as to the amount of benefits that State Fund owed and would owe, leaving medical benefits open.

¶ 8 On November 4, 1988, the Department of Labor & Industry approved their settlement.1

¶ 9 On August 3, 1998, Miller filed his first Petition for Hearing against State Fund. He claimed that their 1988 settlement agreement should be rescinded on the grounds that they were operating under a mutual mistake of fact as to his physical ability to operate his own ranch.2

¶ 10 On March 11, 1999, this Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment, ruling that Miller's claim to rescind their 1988 settlement agreement onthe grounds of mutual mistake of fact was time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations in § 27-2-203, MCA.3

¶ 11 On January 27, 2000, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed this Court's ruling.4

¶ 12 On March 29, 2000, Miller filed his second Petition for Hearing against State Fund.5 Inter alia, Miller again sought to rescind their 1988 settlement agreement.6

¶ 13 On November 17, 2000, this Court issued its Order Governing Further Proceedings.7 On Miller's claims to rescind the 1988 settlement agreement, this Court made four rulings, as follows:

¶ 13a This Court ruled that, under the doctrine of res judicata, Miller could not relitigate his claim that the 1988 settlement agreement should be rescinded on the grounds that the parties were operating under a mistake of fact as to his ability to operate his own ranch, including State Fund's statute of limitations defense.8
¶ 13b This Court dismissed Miller's claim to rescind the 1988 settlement agreement on the grounds that the parties were operating under a mistake of law because State Fund did not consider cost-of-living-adjustments (COLAs) when evaluating the value of his claim.9 This Court explained that Miller's allegation did not set forth a mistake of law because an injured worker was not entitled to COLAs under the 1983 Workers' Compensation Act.10
¶ 13c This Court ruled that Miller's dissatisfaction with the lawyer who initially represented him was not grounds to rescind the 1988 settlement agreement.11
¶ 13d Because Miller alleged that the Clerk of this Court had told him to limit his first case, this Court ruled that if Miller could prove that he was precluded from bringing all of his claims in his first case, then he could proceed on: (1) his claim to rescind the 1988 settlement agreement on the grounds of mistake of law because State Fund reduced his payment to present value; and (2) his claim to rescind the 1988 settlement agreement on the grounds that it was based on amistake of fact as to Miller's weekly benefits rate, the calculation of which did not include his alleged concurrent employment.12 This Court noted that if Miller had not been told to limit his case, then these claims would be barred by res judicata.13 This Court stated it would call in a district court judge to hold a hearing and make findings as to whether the Clerk of this Court had told Miller to limit his first case, thereby depriving him of his opportunity to present other grounds to rescind the 1988 settlement in his first case.14

¶ 14 This Court called in District Court Judge Jeffrey M. Sherlock on the issue of whether the Clerk of this Court told Miller to limit his first case.15 After an evidentiary hearing, Judge Sherlock found that the Clerk of this Court had not told Miller to limit his first case.16

¶ 15 On May 14, 2001, this Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment,17 and certified its Judgment as final.18 On Miller's claims to reopen the 1988 settlement agreement, this Court made three rulings, as follows:

¶ 15a This Court adopted Judge Sherlock's findings and ruled that Miller's claims to rescind the 1988 settlement agreement were barred by res judicata because Miller had the opportunity to litigate these claims in his first case against State Fund.19
¶ 15b If Miller's claims were not barred by res judicata, this Court ruled that the parties were not operating under a mistake of law as to whether State Fund could reduce Miller's settlement amount to present value. This Court found that the parties did not agree to a "lump-sum payout of undisputed total disability benefits erroneously reduced to present value" under § 39-71-741, MCA (1983).20 Rather, this Court found that the parties negotiated a compromise settlement of their disputes over the amount of benefits State Fund owed and would owe, and agreed to an amount of consideration.21¶ 15c If Miller's claims were not barred by res judicata, this Court ruled that the parties were not operating under a mistake of fact concerning Miller's alleged concurrent employment.22

¶ 16 In June 2001, Miller and State Fund attended a settlement conference at which they reached a second settlement agreement. On June 12, 2001, Miller, his wife, and State Fund's attorney signed a Stipulation of Parties, the purpose of which was "a full and final compromise settlement of all issues arising from Petitioner's injury on October 23, 1983, including those in WCC No. 2000-0059" and to "fully and finally compromis[e] all benefits payable under the Workers' Compensation and/or Occupational Disease Acts, including but not limited to medical, rehabilitation, wage loss and indemnity benefits."23 For its part of the settlement, State Fund agreed, inter alia, to pay Miller $67,500.24 In exchange, Miller agreed, inter alia, to settle "all benefit claims" and to "a complete closure of all other court proceedings against the State Fund, including appeal, as it pertains or relates to his October 23, 1983 injury."25 Miller agreed that he entered into the settlement "of his own free will and accord without any compulsion or duress and with the counsel and advice of Amy Miller and William Galt."26 The parties asked this Court to enter a judgment in accordance with their settlement agreement.27

¶ 17 Pursuant to the parties' settlement agreement, on June 14, 2001, this Court entered a Judgment and Order.28 This Court ordered State Fund to pay Miller the $67,500 and noted that, inter alia, Miller had agreed to dismiss a pending motion for reconsideration and to completely close all other court proceedings against State Fund, including appeal.29 This Court adjudged that the parties' dispute "has been resolved by an agreement between the parties [to] fully and finally compromis[e] all benefits payableunder the Workers' Compensation and/or Occupational Disease Acts, including but not limited to medical, rehabilitation, wage loss, and indemnity benefits."30

¶ 18 On August 11, 2020, Miller filed his third and current Petition for Hearing against State Fund31 and has since filed two amendments.32 In these pleadings, Miller again seeks rescission of their 1988 settlement...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Miller v. Mont. State Fund
    • United States
    • Montana Workers Compensation Court
    • February 24, 2021
    ...(citations omitted). 37. In re Marriage of Hopper, 1999 MT 310, ¶ 29, 297 Mont. 225, 991 P.2d 960 (citation omitted). 38. Miller, 2020 MTWCC 21. 39. Miller, 2021 MTWCC...
  • Miller v. Mont. State Fund
    • United States
    • Montana Workers Compensation Court
    • February 24, 2021
    ...action.") (citations omitted). 37. In re Marriage of Hopper, 1999 MT 310, ¶ 29, 297 Mont. 225, 991 P.2d 960 (citation omitted). 38. Miller, 2020 MTWCC 21. 39. Miller, 2021 MTWCC ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT