Garrity v. Engineered Products
Maine Employers' Mutual Insurance Company
October 27, 2015
CategoriesLump Sum Settlement
Lump Sum Settlement Amending Settlement Agreements
Summary from the Troubh Heisler Attorneys
David Garrity entered into a lump sum settlement agreement regarding work injuries. He affirmed he did not receive and did not expect to receive Medicare benefits. His counsel represented to Judge Stovall that Mr. Garrity had residual work capacity and intended to return to work.
Eight months after settlement, Mr. Garrity submitted a Motion to Amend. He had applied for social security benefits, and to maximize his potential award of those benefits he now wanted the ALJ to allocate his settlement amount over his life. Judge Stovall denied the motion as untimely without explanation.
Mr. Garrity appealed, arguing that procedures like those in Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows for reopening of civil judgments for certain reasons, should have been followed by Judge Stovall. The panel rejected his argument, noting that he failed to make this argument in his Motion to Amend. Furthermore, the Act contains its own statutory procedure for reopening approved agreements. Section 321(1). Mr. Garrity stated he did was not seeking relief under this section. As a result his appeal had no merit and the panel affirmed.