Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Acuff, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00388-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-00388-SCT2005-CA-00388-SCT2005-CA-00388-SCT2005-CA-00388-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 05-23-2006 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-03-2006 Opinion Author: DICKINSON, J. Holding: AFFIRMED ON DIRECT APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - False affidavits - Newly discovered evidence - Findings of fact - M.R.C.P. 52 - Prior releases - Statute of limitations - 45 U.S.C. § 56 Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., DIAZ, CARLSON AND GRAVES, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Easley, J., Concurs in Part Non Participating Judge(s): RANDOLPH, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-06-2004 Appealed from: Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge: Lamar Pickard Disposition: Denied Appellant's Motion to Dismiss Case Number: 2001-65 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY; JAMES EXPOSE |
LONNIE D. BAILEY, GLENN F. BECKHAM, THOMAS R. PETERS,
EDWARD BLACKMON, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | PHILLIP ACUFF, CHARLES W. BROWN, WILLIAM CARLISLE, JAMES M. CARPENTER, LAMAR CLARK, C. H. COBB, HUBERT DEER, WILLIAM R. JOHNSTON, DAN C. JONES, CLYTHUS MASON, CHARLIE E. McNEIL, JOHNNY W. MITCHELL, YORK SIT, CHARLES R. WARREN, LESTER RAY WARREN, AND WILLIE WOODBERRY; ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY | THOMAS W. BROCK, WILLIAM S. GUY |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - False affidavits - Newly discovered evidence - Findings of fact - M.R.C.P. 52 - Prior releases - Statute of limitations - 45 U.S.C. § 56 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Seventeen plaintiffs allege they contracted diseases as a result of their exposure to asbestos while employed with Illinois Central Railroad Company. In 2002, the parties agreed to a Settlement Procedure under which the plaintiffs would be paid after submitting certain information to ICRR, including the “Illinois Central Pulmonary Questionnaire,” employment and healthcare information, and certain medical records. In 2003, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement due to a lag in many payments. Soon after, ICRR voiced concerns about the documentation provided by some of the plaintiffs. In 2004, the plaintiffs’ counsel offered to provide ICRR with affidavits from all remaining unsettled plaintiffs detailing their involvement in prior asbestos litigation. After ICRR received the supplemental documentation, it discovered that most of the affidavits, including those from the employees here, omitted the affiant’s involvement in at least one additional asbestos case. The circuit court ruled the inaccurate information in the affidavits did not prejudice ICRR, and even if the omitted information had been included, that information would not have aided ICRR in any of its defenses. The circuit court entered an order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and denying ICRR’s Motion to Compel Compliance. ICRR filed its notice of appeal and plaintiff James Expose appealed from the dismissal of his claim based on a prior release. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: False affidavits ICRR argues the court committed reversible error by granting the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement in light of false affidavits and questionnaires submitted by the plaintiffs. However, the record provides no evidence that plaintiffs or their counsel were trying to conceal information from ICRR. Additionally, ICRR suggests no motivation for plaintiffs or their counsel to hide plaintiffs’ involvement in other cases. Thus, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying ICRR’s motion to dismiss. ICRR reserved three defenses: statute of limitations; valid prior release; and lack of employment. The two undisclosed cases have no effect on ICRR’s defenses. Issue 2: Newly discovered evidence ICRR filed a motion to reconsider claiming that it had newly discovered evidence proving the intentional nature of plaintiffs’ affidavit omissions. However, even if the new evidence were to prove plaintiffs and their counsel intentionally left out the two cases, ICRR cannot show how the information would have helped them or how the lack of that information injured them. ICRR also requested that the circuit court make specific findings of fact and state its conclusions, but the court refused. However, the hearing transcript reveals that the judge carefully and clearly articulated his factual findings and legal conclusions. Where a trial court makes general findings of fact and conclusions of law, it has complied with M.R.C.P. 52. Issue 3: Prior releases ICRR argues that twelve of the plaintiffs previously released their asbestos-related claims against ICRR by signing prior releases. Each plaintiff has provided an affidavit explaining that at the time he signed the release, the only claim he had against ICRR was for hearing loss (or back injury/seniority rights), he did not have a pending asbestos claim against ICRR, he had not been diagnosed with any asbestos-related illness, and he only intended to settle the hearing loss (or back injury/seniority rights) claim. The key inquiry is whether or not the risk of developing an asbestos-related illness was known and contemplated by each plaintiff at the time he signed his release. The circuit court could have found the plaintiffs’ asbestos claims were contemplated at the time they signed their releases. However, it did not, and the judge’s findings were supported by substantial, credible, and reasonable evidence. Issue 4: Statute of limitations ICRR argues the claims presented by two of the plaintiffs are barred by FELA’s statute of limitations, 45 U.S.C. § 56, which states, “[n]o action shall be maintained under this chapter unless commenced within three years from the date the cause of action accrued.” ICRR claims that one of the plaintiffs was aware that his breathing problems might be work-related because he mentioned this thought to his gastroenterologist in 1990, who noted in the medical record that the plaintiff had been contacted by his lawyer that he may have asbestosis. Contrary to ICRR’s position, an impression of asbestos exposure noted by a gasteroenterologist is hardly enough to begin the statute of limitations. With regard to the other plaintiff, ICRR claims that he told his doctor in 1996 that he was a retired railroad worker with a history of asbestos exposure. However, the doctor’s deposition supports the plaintiff’s claim that he was diagnosed with emphysema, not an asbestos-related disease. The emphysema diagnosis understandably laid to rest any suspicion the plaintiff might have had regarding what caused his injury. Issue 5: Subsequent medical tests ICRR argues that because three plaintiffs had medical tests performed after their assessment of an asbestos illness by a B-reader associated with plaintiffs’ counsel which showed no signs of any asbestos disease, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any settlement money and are acting in bad faith by pursuing their claims. The plaintiffs’ subsequent medical tests were interpreted by radiologists or family physicians, not certified B- readers. According to ICRR’s own definition, B-readers “are physicians certified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health as proficient in the classification of chest x-rays using the ILO scale.” Therefore, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny ICRR’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims based on subsequent evaluations. Issue 6: Cross-appeal The circuit court dismissed a plaintiff’s asbestos claim against ICRR because he signed a carpal tunnel release on May 10, 2004, three years after this action was filed. Therefore, his asbestos claim was pending when he signed the release. Substantial evidence supports the court’s decision that the plaintiff obviously knew the risks of asbestos exposure when he executed the release. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
