 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cruz v. Wausau Insurance2/8/2005
The plaintiff, David Cruz, appeals from the Superior Court's denial of his petition for declaratory relief. He maintains that the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata support his position in the declaratory judgment action and that the hearing justice erred as a matter of law when he declined to grant declaratory relief. The defendants, Wausau Insurance Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, challenge the position taken by Cruz; they maintain that the grant or denial of declaratory relief is a discretionary decision and that the hearing justice did not abuse that discretion when he denied the petition for declaratory relief.
The underlying controversy arises out of an automobile collision that occurred on April 28, 2000, between vehicles operated by Cruz and by an individual named Stephen Woodruff. At the time of the collision, plaintiff was operating a vehicle belonging to his employer, Kelly and Picerne. Upon examination of plaintiff after the collision, it was discovered that he previously had been suffering from a pre-existing asymptomatic brain tumor (referred to as a "medulloblastoma") and that the tumor has since become symptomatic. As a result, plaintiff has become unemployable and requires continuing medical treatment.
Cruz's employer, Kelly and Picerne, carried both automobile insurance and workers' compensation insurance. The automobile insurance policy had an uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage provision in the amount of one million dollars. The plaintiff filed claims for benefits pursuant to both the Workers' Compensation Act and the underinsured motorist coverage section of the automobile insurance policy.
The Workers' Compensation Court conducted hearings and issued a decision on October 2, 2003. In its decision, the Workers' Compensation Court stated:
" t is the opinion of the Court that the motor vehicle accident of April 28, 2000 aggravated the [plaintiff's] pre-existing medulloblastoma causing it to become symptomatic and ultimately causing the [plaintiff] to become disabled."
In its findings of fact, the Workers' Compensation Court found that Cruz's injury arose "out of and in the course of the [plaintiff's] employment, connected therewith and referable thereto, of which the employer had notice." It then concluded that plaintiff was entitled to collect workers' compensation benefits and other payments and reimbursements. No appeal was taken from the decision of the Workers' Compensation Court.
The claim for underinsured motorist benefits was referred to an arbitration panel. The arbitration hearings commenced on July 9, 2003, but the panel has not yet made an award.
It is undisputed that, at the time of the collision, Cruz was acting within the scope of his employment. The central issue to be resolved by the Workers' Compensation Court was whether he was entitled to workers' compensation benefits. To make such a determination, the Workers' Compensation Court simply had to determine (1) whether plaintiff was incapacitated as a result of his injury; and (2) whether there was a causal relationship between plaintiff's employment and his injury. See Mulcahey v. New England Newspapers, Inc., 488 A.2d 681, 684 (R.I. 1985).
By contrast, before plaintiff may be awarded damages pursuant to the underinsured motorist coverage section of his employer's automobile insurance policy, the arbitration panel will have to determine the liability (if any) of the alleged tortfeasor, Woodruff. To do so, the arbitration panel must conclude that plaintiff's injuries were proximately caused by the collision; he must prove to the arbitration panel that but for the negligence of the a
Page 1 2 3 Rhode Island Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|