|
IN THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION
COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2000 MTWCC 63
WCC No. 9801-7900
KRISTOPHER MILLER
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE COMPENSATION
INSURANCE FUND
Respondent/Insurer
for
SELF-EMPLOYED
DOCTOR OF CHIROPRACTIC
Employer.
ORDER DENYING MOTION IN LIMINE
Summary of Case: Claimant
was criminally charged with workers' compensation fraud. Following dismissal
of the charges by the State, he filed a motion in limine to exclude any
evidence of fraud at a trial on his petition for benefits. The motion
was based on correspondence between his attorney and the Clerk of the
WCC, and correspondence between the State Compensation Insurance Fund's
attorney and the Clerk.
Held: The motion is
denied. (1) The motion in limine is improper. (2) There is no binding
stipulation or agreement. (3) The State Fund's agreement, if any, concerned
an acquittal after trial, not a dismissal.
Topics:
Attorneys: Correspondence.
Letter from insurer's counsel to Clerk of Workers' Compensation Court
agreeing with statements in letter from claimant's counsel did not create
binding agreement for dismissal of insurer's affirmative defense of
fraud. Letter from claimant's counsel to Clerk had indicated case should
settle if claimant was found not guilty of fraud in pending criminal
case. When writing to the Clerk, insurer's counsel merely concurred
with logic of earlier letter. Claimant, in any event, was not actually
found "not guilty" when charges were dismissed.
Defenses: Fraud. Claimant's
motion in limine to exclude evidence of fraud at trial was not proper
where claimant, in essence, sought to strike an affirmative defense
but had not moved for partial summary judgment or to strike. The motion
to exclude was also denied because no agreement to drop fraud defense
arose from communications to Clerk of Court by counsel.
Evidence: Criminal Prosecution.
Claimant's counsel wrote to Clerk of Workers' Compensation Court asserting
that case should settle if claimant was found not guilty of fraud in
pending criminal case. Insurance counsel's agreement in his letter
to Clerk did not create binding agreement to dismiss affirmative defense
of fraud. Criminal case, in any event, was dismissed and claimant was
never found "not guilty" of fraud.
Evidence: Generally.
Claimant's motion in limine to exclude evidence of fraud at trial was
not proper where claimant, in essence, sought to strike an affirmative
defense but had not moved for partial summary judgment or to strike.
The motion to exclude was also denied because no agreement to drop fraud
defense arose from communications to Clerk of Court by counsel.
Fraud. Claimant's
motion in limine to exclude evidence of fraud at trial was not proper
where claimant, in essence, sought to strike an affirmative defense
but had not moved for partial summary judgment or to strike. The motion
to exclude was also denied because no agreement to drop fraud defense
arose from communications to Clerk of Court by counsel.
Pleading: Affirmative
Defenses. Claimant's motion in limine to exclude evidence of fraud
at trial was not proper where claimant, in essence, sought to strike
an affirmative defense but had not moved for partial summary judgment
or to strike. The motion to exclude was also denied because no agreement
to drop fraud defense arose from communications to Clerk of Court by
counsel.
Procedure: Motion in Limine.
Claimant's motion in limine to exclude evidence of fraud at trial was
not proper where claimant, in essence, sought to strike an affirmative
defense but had not moved for partial summary judgment or to strike.
The motion to exclude was also denied because no agreement to drop fraud
defense arose from communications to Clerk of Court by counsel.
Procedure: Motion to Strike.
Claimant's motion in limine to exclude evidence of fraud at trial was
not proper where claimant, in essence, sought to strike an affirmative
defense but had not moved for partial summary judgment or to strike.
Settlement: Generally.
Letter from insurer's counsel to Clerk of Workers' Compensation Court
agreeing with statements in letter from claimant's counsel did not create
binding agreement for dismissal of insurer's affirmative defense of
fraud. Letter from claimant's counsel to Clerk had indicated case should
settle if claimant was found not guilty of fraud in pending criminal
case. When writing to the Clerk, insurer's counsel merely concurred
with logic of earlier letter. Claimant, in any event, was not actually
found "not guilty" when charges were dismissed.
Summary Judgment: Motion
to Summary Judgment. Claimant's motion in limine to exclude evidence
of fraud at trial was not proper where claimant, in essence, sought
to strike an affirmative defense but had not moved for partial summary
judgment or to strike.
¶1 The claimant in this matter
is seeking 500 weeks of permanent partial disability benefits and payment
for medical expenses. State Fund alleges his claim is fraudulent. Through
a motion in limine, the claimant now seeks to strike the fraud defense based
on a letter of State Fund's counsel which claimant construes as indicating
an agreement by the State Fund to drop the defense in the event the criminal
case was dropped. In fact, the criminal case against claimant was dropped
and never went to trial.
¶2 Initially, the motion
is improper. What claimant seeks to do is strike an affirmative defense.
A motion for partial summary judgment or to strike should have been filed.
¶3 Moreover, the correspondence
upon which the motion is based is insufficient to preclude the defense
in any event. First, there is no stipulation or enforceable written agreement.
At best, there is a letter from counsel for State Fund indicating he agreed
with the logic of claimant's analysis. Second, the correspondence does
not address the effect of the State dismissing the criminal prosecution,
only an acquittal. In his letter, which was addressed to the Clerk of
this Court, claimant's attorney wrote:
In its Complaint,
the State of Montana claims that my client did not suffer an on-the-job
injury, and that he was working and receiving compensation at the same
time he was receiving workers' compensation benefits. I would think that
disposition of these issues in the criminal case would be dispositive
of my client's right to compensation in the workers' compensation case.
In other words, if he is found not guilty in the criminal case, this should
be dispositive of issues currently pending before the Workers' Compensation
Court.
We are set for trial
on December 13, 1999, and there appears to be no question, at this time,
that the case will, in fact, go to trial as scheduled. I would think
that after the trial on the criminal charges, my client would be in a
position to resolve his workers' compensation case without the necessity
of a trial. [Emphasis added.]
(Petitioner's Memorandum in Support
of First Motion in Limine, Ex. A.)
CounsEl for the State Fund,
who received a copy of the letter, then wrote the Clerk of Court, as follows:
I am in receipt of
a copy of the letter to you dated September 22, 1999 from Robert G. Olson
of Frisbee, Moore and Olson. I write to let you know that I concur with
Mr. Olson on the issues addressed in that letter.
(Id., Ex. B.) Even if the
correspondence gives rise to a binding agreement, the agreement was contingent
upon claimant going to trial and being acquitted.
¶4 The motion is denied.
DATED in Helena, Montana, this
20th day of September, 2000.
(SEAL)
/s/ Mike McCarter
JUDGE
c: Mr. Robert G. Olson
Mr. Charles G. Adams
Date Submitted: September 1, 2000 |
