Gray•Duffy, LLP Negotiates Dismissal for Waiver of Costs in Serious Personal Injury Case

September 2015

Overview

Plaintiff, Ivon Godoy-Ramirez, was hired by the client, AMR, who then assigned Mr. Godoy-Ramirez to work at the warehouse operated by defendant, ILAD, INC. Plaintiff fell about 25′ from a cherry picker, sustaining serious and permanently disabling injuries on about July 26, 2012. Mr. Godoy-Ramirez filed a personal injury lawsuit against both AMR and ILAD, INC. We prepared a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of AMR on the basis that Mr. Godoy-Ramirez was its employee. Plaintiff’s counsel agreed the motion was well taken and further agreed to dismiss AMR in exchange for a waiver of costs and to provide the Dismissal before the hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff did not provide the Dismissal, and the Motion was granted. Plaintiff then provided a Dismissal with prejudice. Rather than file a proposed Judgment based on the Motion for Summary Judgment, AMR filed a Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement, which was granted. Thereafter the Dismissal with prejudice was filed rather than Judgment. This procedure precludes ILAD, INC. from suing AMR for equitable indemnity, whereas the Motion for Summary Judgment did not provide such certainty. Another interesting twist to the case was the lawsuit by the insurance carrier who retained Gray · Duffy, LLP against ILAD, INC. for reimbursement of the Workers Compensation benefits the insurance carrier paid. This lawsuit was consolidated with MR. GODOY-RAMIREZ’s lawsuit. Litigation counsel for the insurance carrier objected to the Motion for Summary Judgment and demanded that it not be filed because it asserted the general employer status to AMR and the special employer status to ILAD, INC. and conflicted with the insurance carrier’s claim against ILAD, INC. Further, the insurance carrier’s litigation counsel sought to communicate directly with AMR personnel, as well as direct their deposition testimony and production of records. AMR continued to cooperate with litigation counsel for its insurance carrier without compromising its attorney-client communications and without altering its theory of defense with the approval of the adjustor.

Please Note: This article is necessarily general in nature and is not a substitute for legal advice with respect to any particular case. Readers should consult with an attorney before taking any action affecting their interests.