Tomlin v. Vance Intern., Inc., No. 2475-95-2
| Docket Nº | No. 2475-95-2 |
| Citation | 22 Va.App. 448, 470 S.E.2d 599 |
| Case Date | May 21, 1996 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Virginia |
Page 599
v.
VANCE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Richmond.
Page 600
[22 Va.App. 450] Gregory S. Hooe (Traylor & Morris; Joynes and Bieber of Richmond, P.C., on briefs), Chester, for appellant.
Lynne J. Fiscella (Cotter, Fiscella & Carleton, on brief), Virginia Beach, for appellee.
Present: MOON, C.J., COLEMAN, J., and COLE, Senior Judge.
MOON, Chief Judge.
David Michael Tomlin appeals from the order of the Workers' Compensation Commission holding that Vance International, Inc. and its insurer did not waive subrogation rights in a settlement of his compensation claim. Because the employer unequivocally waived its subrogation rights when it settled Tomlin's workers' compensation claim, we reverse the commission's ruling.
Tomlin was employed as a security guard by Vance International. On September 9, 1989, Tomlin was assaulted during a riot and was severely injured. After the accident, the employer paid certain workers' compensation benefits pursuant to the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act. Tomlin then elected to file a claim in Virginia pursuant to Code § 65.2-508. Vance International denied the claim initially but ultimately accepted it as compensable. On September 5, 1991, Tomlin filed suit against several third parties who were allegedly responsible for his injuries.
On April 8, 1992, Vance International and Tomlin forwarded to the commission a petition, order, and affidavit setting forth the terms of a settlement of Tomlin's workers' compensation claim. The commission approved the petition on April 15, 1992. At various times after that date, Tomlin settled his claims against the third parties. Vance International asserts that it is subrogated to Tomlin's claim against the third parties and is entitled to reimbursement from the third-party settlement funds. Tomlin maintains that Vance waived its subrogation rights when it settled the workers' compensation claim. [22 Va.App. 451] Tomlin's counsel is holding the proceeds from the third-party settlements pending resolution of the subrogation issue.
The above facts were stipulated by the parties before the commission. The record
Page 601
also contains parol evidence in the form of correspondence exchanged by the parties during negotiations to settle the workers' compensation claim. The correspondence indicates that Vance International knew about the personal injury case in Minnesota and provided videos of the riot in order to assist Tomlin in that case. The correspondence also indicates that Tomlin was aware of "a potential worker's compensation lien being filed in Minnesota" and that Vance's assistance with the third-party claim was related to that lien in some manner.The parties' petition to the commission provides, in pertinent part:
This compromise settlement shall be binding upon the Claimant, the employer and/or its insurer and is intended to be a full and final settlement of any claims, demands and obligations, between the Claimant and/or the employer, or its insurance carrier which might be asserted by the Claimant and/or employer, or its insurance carrier, pursuant to the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act, Virginia Code Section 65.2-100 et seq.
* * * * * *
The Claimant, employer and its carrier further...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michigan Mut. Ins. Co. v. Smoot, No. CIV.A.00-1026-A.
...evidences the principle that an injured worker be prevented from obtaining a double recovery. See, e.g., Tomlin v. Vance Int'l, Inc., 22 Va.App. 448, 470 S.E.2d 599, 601 (1996) (noting that the statute was crafted to prevent double recovery); Crab Orchard Improvement Co. v. Chesapeake & Ohi......
-
Overhead Door Co. of Norfolk v. Lewis, Record No. 0597-98-2.
...of the negligence of a third party and to prevent an employee from obtaining a double recovery of funds." Tomlin v. Vance Int'l, Inc., 22 Va.App. 448, 452, 470 S.E.2d 599, 601 (1996). Under Code § 65.2-310, an employer may petition the court for a lien against the third-party judgment in th......
-
Michigan Mut. Ins. Co. v. Smoot, Civ. A. No. 00-1026-A.
...law: one recovery in workers' compensation benefits, and another in a third-party tort award. See, e.g., Tomlin v. Vance Int'l, Inc., 22 Va. App. 448, 470 S.E.2d 599, 601 (1996); Wood v. Caudle-Hyatt, Inc., 18 Va.App. 391, 444 S.E.2d 3, 8 (1994). Debbie Smoot has not received a double recov......
-
Williams v. Capital Hospice and Companion Property & Cas. Ins. Co., Record No. 0947–15–4.
...a result of the negligence of a third party and to prevent an employee from obtaining a double recovery of funds." Tomlin v. Vance Int'l, 22 Va.App. 448, 452, 470 S.E.2d 599, 601 (1996). "The only restriction that Code § 65.2–309 imposes on the employer's lien rights is set forth in Code § ......
-
Michigan Mut. Ins. Co. v. Smoot, No. CIV.A.00-1026-A.
...evidences the principle that an injured worker be prevented from obtaining a double recovery. See, e.g., Tomlin v. Vance Int'l, Inc., 22 Va.App. 448, 470 S.E.2d 599, 601 (1996) (noting that the statute was crafted to prevent double recovery); Crab Orchard Improvement Co. v. Chesapeake & Ohi......
-
Overhead Door Co. of Norfolk v. Lewis, Record No. 0597-98-2.
...of the negligence of a third party and to prevent an employee from obtaining a double recovery of funds." Tomlin v. Vance Int'l, Inc., 22 Va.App. 448, 452, 470 S.E.2d 599, 601 (1996). Under Code § 65.2-310, an employer may petition the court for a lien against the third-party judgment in th......
-
Michigan Mut. Ins. Co. v. Smoot, Civ. A. No. 00-1026-A.
...law: one recovery in workers' compensation benefits, and another in a third-party tort award. See, e.g., Tomlin v. Vance Int'l, Inc., 22 Va. App. 448, 470 S.E.2d 599, 601 (1996); Wood v. Caudle-Hyatt, Inc., 18 Va.App. 391, 444 S.E.2d 3, 8 (1994). Debbie Smoot has not received a double recov......
-
Williams v. Capital Hospice and Companion Property & Cas. Ins. Co., Record No. 0947–15–4.
...a result of the negligence of a third party and to prevent an employee from obtaining a double recovery of funds." Tomlin v. Vance Int'l, 22 Va.App. 448, 452, 470 S.E.2d 599, 601 (1996). "The only restriction that Code § 65.2–309 imposes on the employer's lien rights is set forth in Code § ......