 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dodds v. Conrad2/16/2001
JUDGMENT: Reversed and judgment entered for Appellant.
This is an appeal from the Portage County Court of Common Pleas. Appellant, George Dodds, appeals the trial court judgment entering summary judgment in favor of appellees, the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation ("Bureau") and Kent State University, the employer. This case involves a dispute about the scope of a workers' compensation settlement agreement between appellant and appellees.
In 1994, the parties entered into a settlement agreement by the terms of which appellant was paid $6,000. The instant dispute is whether this settlement is confined to an August 29, 1990 injury and Claim No. PEM271783, or includes a prior claim and payments being made thereunder.
At the time of this settlement, and for fifteen months thereafter, appellant had another allowed claim upon which he received weekly benefits. (Claim No. PEL91772.).
On November 26, 1995, the Bureau unilaterally terminated the benefits being paid under the older claim, found that payments from January 27, 1995 to November 26, 1995 were overpayments, and ordered $6,065.66 be repaid. However, inasmuch as appellant is retired, he has no future benefits against which repayment can be enforced. R.C. 4123.51.13(J). Appellant appealed this administrative ruling to the Portage County Common Pleas Court. Following discovery, each party filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court overruled the motion of appellant, and sustained the motion of the Bureau and Kent State University. Appellant appeals to this court assigning two errors:
"[1.] The trial court erred to the prejudice of [appellant] in denying [appellant's] motion for summary judgment.
"[2.] The trial court erred to the prejudice of [appellant] in granting [appellees'] motion for summary judgment.
The issues here involve the legal impact of a settlement agreement executed between the parties. The pertinent question is whether or not the single page document included the earlier allowed claim as a part of the release, or whether the release was limited to only Claim No. PEM271783. The document, in its entirety, is attached and incorporated.
It is our view that each of the assigned errors has merit, and thus, we reverse the judgment of the Portage County Common Pleas Court.
Civ.R. 56(C) provides that before summary judgment may be granted, it must be determined that:
(1) No genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated;
(2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and
(3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that conclusion is adverse to that party.
Furthermore, appellate courts review a trial court's granting of summary judgment de novo. Brown v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 704, 711. The Brown court stated that " e review the judgment independently and without deference to the trial court's determination." Id.
First, we are invited to examine the contract in question from the perspective of the principle of ejusdem generis, and hold that the general words of "release" and "waiver" are limited by the specific recital of the numbered claim.
To determine whether the principle of ejusdem generis is to be invoked to the benefit of appellant, it is necessary to examine the entire contract and determine whether, from its four corners, it is clear, or whether there are ambiguities to be resolved according to principles o
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|