PASCHALL TRUCK LINES INC. v. Kirkland
| Decision Date | 11 September 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. A07A1023.,A07A1023. |
| Citation | 651 S.E.2d 804,287 Ga. App. 497 |
| Parties | PASCHALL TRUCK LINES, INC. v. KIRKLAND. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Hamilton, Westby, Antononwich & Anderson, Steven A. Westby, David L. Black, Atlanta, for appellant.
Hinton & Powell, Douglas R. Powell, Dennis, Corry, Porter & Smith, Ronald R. Coleman Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
Paul Kirkland, the appellee in this action, was driving a truck for appellant Paschall Truck Lines, Inc. when he was hit by another commercial vehicle. The accident occurred in Georgia, where Kirkland is a resident. Kirkland filed a workers' compensation claim in Kentucky, where Paschall's main office is located and received medical and indemnity benefits pursuant to Kentucky's workers' compensation law. He also filed a workers' compensation claim in Georgia against Paschall. The parties negotiated a settlement of Kirkland's workers' compensation claims and entered into a stipulation and agreement as to those claims. This agreement was subsequently approved by the Georgia State Board of Workers' Compensation.
Kirkland also brought suit against the driver that hit him and his employer in Georgia. Paschall filed a motion to intervene in that action to assert a subrogation lien for the workers' compensation benefits it had paid to Kirkland as provided by OCGA § 34-9-11.1. Kirkland subsequently settled his personal injury claims for $100,000.
Kirkland filed a motion to extinguish Paschall's subrogation lien arguing that workers' compensation benefits were paid to him under Kentucky but not under Georgia workers' compensation law and thus Paschall had no right to assert a subrogation lien under OCGA § 34-9-11.1(b) against the settlement proceeds. See Johnson v. Comcar Indus., 252 Ga.App. 625, 626, 556 S.E.2d 148 (2001). ("OCGA § 34-9-11.1(b) plainly provides the employer or insurer a right of subrogation limited to benefits paid under the Georgia Workers' Compensation Act."). The trial court, construing Kirkland's motion as a motion for partial summary judgment as to Paschall's right to subrogation, and citing the language in the agreement stating that the consideration for the settlement of the Georgia claim was the same consideration as had been paid for the settlement of Kirkland's Kentucky workers' compensation claim, agreed that no benefits had been paid under the Georgia Workers' Compensation Act and thus found that Paschall had no right of subrogation under the Act. Paschall appeals.
As is pertinent here, OCGA § 34-9-11.1(b) provides that:
In the event an employee has a right of action against such other person as contemplated in subsection (a) of this Code section and the employer's liability under this chapter has been fully or partially paid, then the employer or such employer's insurer shall have a subrogation lien, not to exceed the actual amount of compensation paid pursuant to this chapter, against such recovery. The employer or insurer may intervene in any action to protect and enforce such lien. However, the employer's or insurer's recovery under this Code section shall be limited to the recovery of the amount of disability benefits, death benefits, and medical expenses paid under this chapter and shall only be recoverable if the injured employee has been fully and completely compensated, taking into consideration both the benefits received under this chapter and the amount of the recovery in the third-party claim, for all economic and noneconomic losses incurred as a result of the injury.
Paschall argues that as the nonmovant for summary judgment, the trial court erred by construing the stipulation and settlement agreement against him, and by finding that there was no issue of fact as to whether workers' compensation benefits were paid under Georgia as well as Kentucky's workers' compensation laws. In support of its argument, Paschall argues that the agreement does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Suntrust Bank v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am.
...employer had not met its burden of proof and its grant of the employee's motion to extinguish the lien.); Paschall Truck Lines v. Kirkland, 287 Ga.App. 497, 499, 651 S.E.2d 804 (2007) (After the employee settled his third-party suit for a lump sum of $100,000, he moved to extinguish his emp......
-
Best Buy Co. v. Mckinney
...between McKinney's economic and noneconomic losses is fatal to its effort to enforce its lien. See Paschall Truck Lines v. Kirkland,287 Ga.App. 497, 499, 651 S.E.2d 804 (2007)(employer unable to prove that employee had been fully and completely compensated, given that settlement agreement b......
-
Donegal Mut. Ins. Grp. v. Jarrett
...was allocated to economic losses and what portion was meant to compensate for noneconomic losses." Paschall Truck Lines v. Kirkland , 287 Ga. App. 497, 499, 651 S.E.2d 804 (2007) (citation and punctuation omitted). Accord City of Warner Robins v. Baker , 255 Ga. App. 601, 604-605 (3), (565 ......
- Thomas v. State
-
Workers' Compensation - H. Michael Bagley, Daniel C. Kniffen, and Katherine D. Dixon
...Bd. of Comm'rs v. Burnett, 200 Ga. App. 379, 408 S.E.2d 168 (1991). 49. Bembry, 286 Ga. App. at 880, 650 S.E.2d at 429. 50. Id. 51. 287 Ga. App. 497, 651 S.E.2d 804 (2007). 52. O.C.G.A. Sec. 34-9-11.1(b) (2008). 53. O.C.G.A. Sec. 34-9-1 to -421 (2008). 54. Kirkland, 287 Ga. App. at 497, 651......