Ryder v. Reagor, 47175

• Decision Date: 08 December 1973
• Docket Number: No. 47175,47175
• Parties: Lottie RYDER, Appellee, v. Dorman L. REAGOR, d/b/a Union Bus Depot and Trinity Universal Insurance Company, Appellants.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 990

516 P.2d 990

213 Kan. 576

Lottie RYDER, Appellee, v. Dorman L. REAGOR, d/b/a Union Bus Depot and Trinity Universal Insurance Company, Appellants.

No. 47175.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Dec. 8, 1973.

Syllabus by the Court

The record in an action to recover a lump-sum judgment pursuant to the provisions of K.S.A. 44-512a is examined, and, as more fully set forth in the opinion, it is held: The district court did not err in granting the plaintiff a lump-sum judgment for the entire amount of the award.

Phillip H. Schuley, of Weary, Robertson, Schuley & Davis, Junction City, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellants.

Richard H. Seaton, of Everett & Seaton, Manhattan, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.

FATZER, Chief Justice:

This is an appeal from a lump-sum judgment entered in favor of the claimant in a workmen's compensation proceeding brought pursuant to K.S.A. 44-512a, for the failure of respondents to pay medical expenses awarded to the claimant. The matter was submitted to the district court upon a stipulation of facts. Those which are germane follow:

On January 8, 1970, Lottie Ryder, hereafter referred to as plaintiff, sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment. Plaintiff made application under the Workmen's Compensation Act to recover compensation and medical expenses from her employer, Dorman L. Reagor, d/b/a Union Bus Depot, and his insurance carrier, Trinity Universal Insurance Company, respondents. The claim was heard by a workmen's compensation examiner, and on July 13, 1971, an award of compensation was made in plaintiff's favor for 47 weeks of temporary total disability at the rate of $49 per week, and a 75 percent permanent partial general bodily disability for 368 weeks at the rate of $49 per week. The examiner's award also required respondents to pay all medical expenses plaintiff had incurred as a result of the injury, and pay future medical expenses in an amount not to exceed $500.

The award was reviewed and approved by the Director of Workmen's Compensation on September 9, 1971. Thereafter, respondents appealed to the district court of Riley County. That court adopted the findings and award of the examiner as approved by the director, and entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. No appeal was taken from that decision.

On June 6, 1972, plaintiff's attorney discovered a mistake in the calculation of compensation payments due plaintiff, and made demand upon the attorney for respondents by registered mail for the amount of compensation due and unpaid. The letter also demanded payment of various medical expenses, and stated:

'Enclosed are copies of medical bills or cancelled checks evidencing charges for medical treatment incurred by the claimant since the date of the award, July 15, 1971, as follows:

"Dr. Philip Hostetter $26.00

Dr. J. D. Coursen 94.00

Dr. Robert Olney 6.00

St. Marys Hospital 50.88

Dr. John Douthit 85.08

'The award included a sum of $500.00 for further medical treatment and the above charges are payable out of that sum.

'Also enclosed is a copy of the bill of Dr. Roy B. Coffey, in the amount of $170.00. The award specifically referred to this bill and required the respondent and insurance carrier to pay it up to $100.00.

'There is also enclosed a copy of a bill of Dr. Roger Wallace, in the amount of $30.00 for services performed in connection with the injury prior to the time of the hearing and award. I do not believe this bill was submitted to you at that time because of the confusion caused by the intervening death of Dr. Wallace. The bill has been paid by Mrs. Ryder and since the award requires respondent and carrier to pay all medical expense incurred as a result of the injury we are submitting this bill for payment, under the award.'

After receiving the demand letter, Mr. Phillip Schuley, respondents' attorney, contacted Mr. Richard Seaton, plaintiff's attorney, by telephone. The attorneys differ on the substance of that telephone conversation. Accordingly, the recollection of both attorneys was set out in the stipulation of facts. Mr. Seaton's recollection is as follows:

'. . . (T)he initial subject of the conversation, and the only one discussed at any length, was our demand for past weekly compensation payments in the amount of $1,127.00. We discussed at length the method by which I arrived at this figure. I explained in detail my calculations. Mr. Schuley indicated that his calculations had produced a total figure for unpaid weekly compensation which was approximately 1 week less than mine. He had used a different method of calculation and we discussed and compared our two methods at some length. We did not resolve this one week difference between our totals over the telephone. Toward the end of the conversation Mr. Schuley asked whether, if the unpaid weekly compensation was paid, we would give him any trouble about the medical bills. I replied 'Not if you pay them.' At no time did Mr. Schuley ask for, nor did I agree to submit to him, any additional hospital or doctor's bills or other evidence of charges for medical treatment.'

Except for the last sentence, Mr. Schuley's recollection accords with Mr. Seaton's account. It is Mr. Schuley's belief that after Mr. Seaton replied, 'Not if you pay them,' he inquired if Mr. Seaton would submit the doctor's statements and hospital bill to insure the bills were attributable to the employment related injuries. By Mr. Schuley's account, Mr. Seaton replied 'OK' to this request, which concluded the conversation.

Subsequently, and on June 27, 1972, a draft was delivered to the office of plaintiff's attorney in the amount...