 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mitchell v. Abernathy2/15/2002
The State, through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC), appeals the dismissal of its workers' compensation intervention in the tort suit of its employee. For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.
Factual Background and Procedural History
On December 5, 1997, Jan Mitchell (Mitchell) was in the course and scope of her employment with DPSC, Office of Motor Vehicles, when she was injured while riding as a passenger in a vehicle driven by the minor daughter of James Abernathy (Abernathy). Mitchell filed a claim for workers' compensation with DPSC, which paid Mitchell's medical expenses and weekly indemnity benefits.
On July 29, 1998, Mitchell filed suit against Abernathy and his insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm), for damages sustained in the December 5, 1997 accident. Approximately three-and-a-half months later, Abernathy and State Farm filed an answer to Mitchell's petition. DPSC sent notice of its lien relative to this accident to Abernathy on September 30, 1998, and to Mitchell on December 18, 1998. On November 2, 1999, Mitchell, Abernathy, and State Farm entered into a settlement agreement for policy limits. DPSC alleged that Mitchell, Abernathy, and State Farm settled Mitchell's claim without obtaining its consent. Furthermore, it contends that at no time prior to settlement was DPSC notified of any settlement negotiations.
On November 17, 1999, DPSC filed a petition of intervention against Abernathy and State Farm, seeking recovery of all workers' compensation benefits and expenses DPSC had paid to or on behalf of Mitchell. That same day, the trial court granted DPSC leave to intervene in the above proceedings. Relative to DPSC's intervention, Mitchell filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of no right or cause of action, and Abernathy and State Farm filed exceptions raising the objection of no right of action and res judicata. The prior settlement agreement was asserted as the ground for these exceptions. Alternatively, Abernathy and State Farm sought summary judgment dismissing the DPSC's intervention. DPSC responded by filing a cross motion for summary judgment. Following a hearing on these matters, the trial court denied DPSC's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of Abernathy and State Farm, dismissing DPSC's intervention. On August 11, 2000, Mitchell filed a motion to dismiss her lawsuit with prejudice, on the basis that a settlement agreement had been reached between Mitchell, Abernathy, and State Farm.
DPSC appeals from the trial court's dismissal of its intervention. On appeal, DPSC asserts that the trial court erred in dismissing its intervention based on a finding that the principal demand had settled prior to the filing of its intervention even though the motion for dismissal was filed approximately nine months after DPSC was granted leave to intervene. It further contends that the trial court erred in granting Abernathy and State Farm's motion for summary judgment, because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether DPSC received notice of the employee's suit as required by the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Act. It also seeks a grant of summary judgment in its favor based on the lack of a genuine issue of material fact regarding DPSC's subrogation lien and the settlement agreement between Mitchell, Abernathy, and State Farm.
Discussion
Employee and employer suits against third persons are regulated by the Louisiana Workers' Compensation law. Louisiana Revised Statute 23:1101 recognizes the right of the employee and the em
Page 1 2 3 4 Louisiana Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|