The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1986-01-21; City Council; 8488; Workers comp settlement - C. Gammon. .\ - SB#- MTG. 1/21/85 *. TITLE: COMPIMMISE AND RELEASE WORKERS DEPT. HD. CaMPENSATION SE;?TLEMENT .. z 0 F 0 d 0 z 3 0 0 a - fly I (Is) -52 i CI’ * OF CARLSBAD - AGENL , BILL DEPT. I ICITY MGR.~ RECOMMENDED ACTION: City Council adopt Resolution No. /?K? ITEM EXPLANATION: Retired Police Officer Charles Gmrmon incurred injuries arising out of his enployment and in the course of his emplo-t with the City. In this case there are dtiple disabilities resulting frm back injuries and psychiatric claims. be extensive. medical care the settlment will cost $31,000. The potential lifetime medical care costs could As a result of this CQnPranise and Release from lifetime The proposed agreement is recoarmended by the City Manager, Workers Can- pensation Mninistratnr and workers anpnsation attornies. FISCAL WACI’: Settlant of costs would be appmximately $31,000, available in the Workers cchnpensation &serve Fund. EXHIBIT : 1. Letter reccmm-dations for cclmpromise and release in the Case of Charles Gammn vs. City of Carlsbad by workers conrpensation attornies. 2. &solution NO. /343 . SUSAN L ENGLAND STEPUEN 0. WlSMAR JOHN J HODIN. Jm LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN L. ENGLAND A PROrC5520NAL CORCORAllON 438 CAMINO DEL R10 SOUTH SUITE 8-118 SAN DIECO. CALIFORNIA 92108-3578 November 22, 1985 BIERLY & ASSOCIATES 7750 Dagget Street, Ste. 112 San Diego CA 92111 Attn: Les Renney Re : Charles Gammon vs. City of Carlsbad 84 SD 87953 484-00 18 Dear Mr. Renney: AREA CODE: QIa TELEPHONE 290-5097 I spoke with applicant's attorney, Patrick Thistle. I extended the offer of a Compromise and Release in the amount of $20,000.00 plus a di_sability retirement to begin on December 1, 1985. Mr. Thistle indicated he would not recommend this to his client. Mr. Thistle indicated that the $20,000 .OO offer contemplated only orthopedic problems which (on a Compromise basis) would probably rate at 25, 4)%, or $19,012.50. Mr. Thistle indicated his confidence that there is a psychiatric component which will add to the overall ratings. Mr. Thistle indicated that he anticipated his client would receive a disability retirement in any event and, as a consequence, was unwilling to accept a reduced permanent disability in view of the promise of a disability retirement. Mr. Thistle indicated he believed the case had a value of $30,000-835,000. He did indicate that he would convey the offer to his client although Mr. Thistle would be recommending against acceptance. It is my understanding that the City is in possession of certain more recent psychiatric reports. I am most anxious to see these. If there is psychicatric permanent disability, it is unlikely that a physician would find it to be less than very slight nor (based on applicant's presentation at the deposition) more than slight. Very slight psychiatric disability, utilizing the combined disability tables, would create a rating of approximately 43% equal to $25,837.50. A psychiatric disability of slight, using the combined disability tables, would produce an overall rating of approximately 52% or $33,150.00. If there is both a psychiatric and orthopedic component to the need for further care, I would value it at $2,500.00. Thus, with a very slight neurosis, the case has a value of approximately $28,337.00 and with a slight neurosis it has a case value of approximately $35,650.00. 3 BIERLY & ASSOCIATES Re: Charles Gammon vs. City of Carlsbad November 22, 1985 Page Two Consequently, three critical questions are whether there is any wpsychiatric disability, the extent of that disability and whether it is industrially caused. If the City accepts the premise that the applicant had an industrially -caused psychiatric disability then settlement by CER in the range of $28,000 and $33,000.00 appears to be a favorable outcome. Very truly yours, Law Offices of SUSAN L. ENGLAND BY f 3/ JOHN J. HODIK, JR. JJH/so CITYOF CARLSBAD Attn: Jerry Pieti c '. SUSAN L ENOLAND STEPHEN D WISMAe JOHN J. ~ODIU.JR. LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN L. ENGLAND A CRO~CSS~ONAL COllPORATlOH 438 CAMINO DEL RIO souin SUITE m-iie SAN DIECO. CALIFORNIA 92108-357e AREA CODE 010 TELEPHONE 296-5097 -. . December 2, 1985 BIERLY g ASSOWES 7750 Dagge sect, Ste. 112 San &A 92111 Attn: Les Renney Re : Charles Gammon vs. City of Carlsbad 84 SD 87953 484-001 8 Dear Mr. Renney: This matter came on for a Conference before Judge Trovillion on November 25, 1985. Applicant was present and represented by Attorney Thistle. I represented the City's interests. Prior to this Conference, I had the opportunity of discussing the contents of my letter of November 22, 1985 with Mr. Pieti from the City of Carlsbad. Mr. Pieti indicated that from the facts and medicals available to him, he generally accepted Mr. Gammon's contention that any psychiatric problem he was experiencing was related to adjusting to the limitations imposed by his significant orthopedic injury . In conferring with Mr. Thistle, I generally discussed the case evaluation set out in my letter of November 22, 1985. After considerable negotiation, it was agreed that his client would Compromise and Release all aspects of the injury of August 20, 1983 (except, of course, the issue of rehabilitation benefits limited to vendor services, an issue which cannot be disposed of by Compromise and Release since this is an admitted orthopedic injury) for $31,000.00. I telephoned Mr. Pieti from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. We agreed to recommend that the City Council approve a settlement in this amount by Compromise and Release. Subject to my receiving authority from the City Council and executing the document, please find attached a copy of the Compromise and Release which has already been signed by Mr. Thistle and the applicant. I will delay canceling the Roger Freeman F c BIERLY 6 ASSOCIATES Re: Charles Gammon vs. City of Carlsbad December 2, 1985 PAGE TWO re-evaluation now scheduled for January 7, 1985 until the City Council has given final authority for the settlement. Very truly yours, Law Offices of SUSAN L. ENGLAND .- JOHN-J. HODIK, JR. JJH/me Enclosure ->CITY OF CARLSBAD Attn : Jerry Pieti k 4.. 3. 4. 5. 6. Upan approvd of hii compromise agmenmni by ha Workm' Compmation App.ab Board or a workers8 comp.macion iudge ond payment in OcColdQK. with rh. provisions heroof, said employee rebosos and fow discharges said employer and insurance carrier from all claims and causes of odh, hethor now known or o~c.cloicnd, or which may hereafter arise or develop 01 a result of said iniury, including any and all liabiri of soid om+ and soid inrurmco car* and each of them k the dqm&nts, heirs, executors, rep- ' , administrators or osignrof d employee. unku olhenmo * expmsly provided herein, approval of this agroement RELEASES ANY AND ALL CLAIMS OF APPLICANT'S DEPENDENTS TO DEATH BENEFITS RELATING TO INJURY OR INJURIES COVERED BY THIS COMPROMISE AGREEMENT. The partier have considered the reloose of heso bedits in arriving at rh. sum in Paragraph No. 2. unku othemme ' expressly ordered by a workom8 compemdh judge, approvol of this agreement DO€S NOT RELEASE ANY CLAIM APPLC CANT MAY NOW OR HEREAFTER HAVE FOR REHABlUTATlON OR BENEFITS IN CONNECTION WITH REHABILITATION. The parties represent that the following foch ore true: (If fads are disputed, state what each pa* contends under Paragraph No. 10.) t PAYABLE TO t PAYABLE TO t PAYABLE TO s PAYABLE TO t PAYABLE TO t PAYABLE TO Qe LLAVlNG A BALANCE OF $ 3 1- 000 other than in a lump sum, or there is additional information, specify on separate pogs(5):) , less approved &mey fee (See Paragraph No. 9, payable to applicant. (If payment is to be --. . . - , . . .-. . , , , ._ -0 -0 8. For tho purposo of &ormining ch. lion claim(s) fikd for poid pnvant to rh. Unomploymont hura~o Co6 01 for brrwfitr by lm cloimonts dofwd in Lobo, Codo kc. 4903.1, ch. p0rli.s propbw ndvcrion of he rim chim(s) in acordonca wirh formula attoehod. 'ode - - Amount of -09 fn prwioudy poid, if q, $ 9. Appkonl's (omployn's) 08onwy roqvorts o fw of $ 34m 10. R.aron for Compromh, spocid provisions r ordm nhobilii and M bumfii claimr, and odd' ' re are serious ~d reasordye issue as to: nature, extent, ar8%eof disability apportimntt need of d liability for future uedical treatment; transportation expenses potential death benefits; Applicant specifically wives interest lrnder Labor S 5800, if paid within 20 days of th issuance of the Order Approviw Canpromise and &lease. Ihe applicant desires a lurp su certain, the defendants desire to hy their peace and the parties desire to mid the delays hazards, a& oosts of litigation. zhe parties reoognize that part of the amsideration of thi Agreenrent is the anticipated 00s- Md time required of each pgrty to be prepared ta full litigate all issues. If the feels that this Agreement my not be adequate, the partie jointly request that the matter be set on the oonference calendar. Ihe parties intend tha ,nothing in this -nt shall constitute an admission of liability cm the part of the defen dants. This Agreanent mntains all agt-e€mntS between the parties relating to the event described in paragraph 1. THE AlTE"1ON OF THE lJcAB IS DIRECTED 'IO THE FACI 'RIAT, ARRIVXN AT ZHEIR m, PN?TIm -1- AM) TO WE APPLIm' DEPmDmIs' RYrmrIAL CIAPI m DEAm BENEPITS. 11. It is ogrnd by all parties horrto hot rho filing of this docununt is ho filing of an application on behalf of th. employee, ond that the web may in its discretion set tho mmer for hearing 0s o regulor application, reserving to the parties the right (0 put in is- any of the facts odmittc herein, ond thot if hearing is held with this document uied os on OpplKdiOn he &fendants shall how owilobk to them atl defonses that we available os of the doto of filing of this document, and thot the WCAB mq hereofter either approve said Compromise Agreement and Relea or disapprove the some and irrw Findings and Award der heoring hos boon hold ond the mottor regularly submitted for &ision. U'ITh'W;Sfhesignature hereof thu 2KTfi day of AhWdhv d- ,19=, ut s+d h~qP I a . -e. L$lz-v-& JlMSS 'INS ACCLICAWI 8 ILYLOVCE SI SGMAM. U#ST I Am8770 DV OR UywruLmD LU- QA' bC&)*MUWl) -COW A *oIUI -. BY: Attorneys for Defendant 0.' STATE OF CALIFORNIA Corlttfy of a Notary PuWtc in and for the said County and State, residing therein. duly commissioned and sworn, personally apppared knotrti to mc to Irp the person- W~SF name, ,~ulsc-ribed to the uifhin Instrument. and acknowledged to me that Ae-erecuttd rhesome. Ih' U'ITNESS WHEREOF. 1 haw hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this Certificate first abot r~nf tim. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 RESOLUTION NO. 8363 A RESOLUTION OF THE CIW COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A COMPROMISE AND RELEASE SETTLEMENT FOR A WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM IN THE CASE OF CHARLES GAMMON. \ WHEREAS, the City Council has established and clearly defined its authority to settle workers compensation claims in excess of five thousand dollars ($5,000); and WHEREAS, the claim of CHARLES GAMMON is approximately $31,000: and WHEREAS, the City Council authorizes a settlement in that amount; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. ' 2. That the City Council authorizes and directs the City Manager to obtain a Compromise and Release settlement in the workers compensation case of Charles Gammon in the amount stated. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council held on the 21st day of January I 1986, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Pettine NOES: None ATTEST: (SEAL)