HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 1 HULL SETTLEMENT 07-06-81DATE:
June 24, 1981
NEW BUSINESS
7-6-81
NO. 1
Inter-Corn
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR ASI) CITY COUNCIL
CHARLES IF~%YER, INTERIM CITY A~MINI~R
S~ - WILLIAM ~3LL
City Council accept the proposed settlement between the City of Tustin and
Willia~ Hull in the amount of $20,582.30 and authorize the Interim City
Manager to execute the ~ompromise and release portions of that agreement.
DISCUSSION:
The attached memorandum from My Gonzales and letter from Leonard J.
Silberman, our legal representative in this case, it is apparent that this
settlement is c~e that is beneficial to the city's side.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Expenditure of $20,582.30. .Pqtential savings ~ompared to ca~ying the case
to its fullest extent of approximately $74,000.00.
I~ator
CT:dmt
DATE:
TO:
FROH:
S UB,~ ECT:
June 23, 1981
Inter-Corn
Charles Thayer, Interim City Administrator
Roy Gonzales, Personnel Director
Settlement - William Hull
Attached is a copy of the letter from Leonard Silberman outlining the
proposed Compromise and Release in the Hull case. As Leonard points out,
this case carries a significant potential settlement value - in the range
of $74,000. This proposed settlement of $20,582.30 not only insures the
City against the loss possible if it goes to trial, but settles or dismisses
all medical claims, rehabilitation, future medical and the 132A discrim-
ination claim. There is a further savings in legal fees for these actions
which was not computed but could easily have added several thousand dollars
to the potential settlement value.
In consideration of the above, I would recommend that the City accept
the proposed settlement in the amount of $20,582.30 and authorize the
execution of the Compromise and Release. This would be appropriate for
the July 6, 1981 council mgeting.
Roy Gonzal~s
Personnel Director
Attachment
;~ALPH D, MALMQUIST
June 16, 1981
CDS of California
5400 Orange Avenue
Cypress, California 90630
Attention: Mary Hutcherson
Re: Claim Number: 6-1341
William L. Hull vs. City of Tustin
Case Number: 80 VN 094587
Dear Mary:
This case was set for trial before the Santa Aha Workers'
Compensation Appeals Board on June 15, 1981, Judge Gill-
ham presiding.
APPEARANCES:
The applicant was present and represented by Seth Kelsey,
of Banks, Leviton and Kelley. We represented your
teresCs. We were pleased to have Roy Gonzales present
representing the City of Tustin.
DISPOS IT ION:
Forty five days for a Compromise and Release Agreement,
contingent on approval of the settlement by the City of
Tustin.
DISCUSSION:
Pursuant ~o our telephone conversation of June 15, 1.981,
I would recommend the settlement to you in the amoun~ of
$20,582.30, based on the following.
The applicant had medical/legal costs totalling $3,343.30
consisting of the following:
Dr. Kroes
Dr. Talis
Dr. Lunsky
$ 2,085.00
48.00
730.00
Re: William.L. Hull
June 16, 1981
Dr. b~rkovitz
Prior attorney's lien for
copying records (Mr. Stern)
Dr. Henryson
441.00
39.03
300.00
Since most of these costs are medical/legal costs, even if
we went on the issue of injury, these costs would be award-
ed to be paid. These bills will come out of the settlement
amom~t of $20,582.30.
Regarding the pegmanant disability, as indicated in our
prior correspondence, the potential value of this case,
based on the applicant's medical reports from Dr. Markovitz,
Dr. Kroes, Dr. Lunsky would be 71% or a dollar equivalent
of $27,247.50, plus a life pension.
The applicant was off work from approximately July 10, 1980
and continuing. The applicant's physician, Dr. Kroes, did
have the applicant off work on a continuous basis. If the
applicant was found to have a compensable injury based on
Dr. Kroes report, he would be entitled to full salary from
the July date to the present and continuing. In order to
dispose of this issue, we allowed the applicant full salary
based on a Sergeant's pay from approximately August 24,
1980 through December 12, 1980, which is 112 days. We round-
ed this figure off to an $8,000.00 figure.
We also included in the settlement the issue of rehabilitation.
If this ease were fo~%d to be compensable, the applicant would
be entitled to rehabilitation plan~ Most rehabilitation plans
are averaging from $7,000.00 to $!0~000.00. Therefore, con-
sidering the potential valve of thi:~ casa, we utilized the
figure of $8,500.00.
The applicant also filed a 132A discrimi~ation case. i am
enclosing a copy of the Decision of Guadalupe Ferrer, v. Wor-
kers' Compensation Appeals Board signed on March 5, 1981,
which held that any employee was non entitled to augmented
Workers' Compensation benefits where she was terminated be-
cause she failed to keep her supervisors informed of her
physical condition and not because she was temporarily dis-
abled as a result of m~ industrial injury. This case as
cases which h~ve prece~ed~i=,clearly state that if the appli-
cant is te~minated while a physician states the applicant is
totally temporarily disabled, the employer is guilty of a
132A action and is entitled to ~eimbursement for lost wages,
entitled to reinstatement to the position at the time of in-
Jury, and any work benefits caused by such acts of the em-
ployer. He is also entitled to a penalty, which would in-
crease the Award up to $10,000.00, plus $250.00 costs. If
the applicant were found to have a compensable injury and
the Findings and Award was based on the 71%, the applicant
William L. Hull
-3-
June 16, 1981
would be entitled to the $10,000.00 penalty, plus $250.00
costs, plus reinstatement of wages from December 12, 1980
to the present which would be approxtm-tely $2,000.00 a
month at sergeant's pay for seven months or an additional
$14,000.00.
Based on the medical reports of the applicant and also our
report from Dr. Villalobos dated June 27, 1980, the appli-
cant would be entitled to further medical treatment. It
is estimated that the value of this lifetime medical treat-
ment would be approximately $2,500.00.
Based on the factors above, the potential value of this
case would be $73,840.80.
The settlement is comprised of the following figures:
1. $3,343.00 for medical/legal expense and self-procured
treatment.
2. 20% permanent disability and r~a~ning the formula back-
wards, would in fact equal a 13% permanent disability
standard. A 10% standard would equal a limitation
from no very heavy lifting er a preclusion from severe
emotional stress.
3. Added to this would be the $8,000.00 for the lost
salary and also $4,000.00 to settle out both the re-
habilitation issue and the 132A action for a total of
$20,582.30.
Ib~RESSION:
On the whole considering the potential value of the case,
I do consider this to be an excellent settlement. While
it would have been a very interesting case to try and while
we could have shown the applicant had a significant amount
of stress created by his own intentional doing outside of
his Job duties, most of the Workers' Compensation Appeals
Board Judges will lean over backwards to allow a policeman,
especially a Lieutenant, to workers compensation benefits
for they have all heard numerous cases involving stress
from police officers and in fact it is difficult to state
that they have not had any stress whatsoever. I therefore
feel that while we would have obtained a significant amount
of apportionment, if there was any finding at all that the
applicant had any stress relate]--fo the Job, the applic~%t
would be entitled to the rehabilitation benefits, would
have all the medical/legal and self-procured bills paid,
would be entitled to his back salary for all these issues
cannot be apportioned. The only issue that can be appor-
tioned is that of permanent disability, in which I do con-
sider we have obtained a substantial savings for the City
Re: William L. Hull
-4-
June 16, 19gl
of Tustin.
Please advise expeditiously as possible if we do have
authority for the settlement. If for z,~.y reason an
appearance need be made at the City of Iustin with
ei~i~er the Workers' Compensation Administrator, Roy
Gonzales, the acting Administrating Officer, Charles
Thayer, or before the City Council, to explain the
settlement, I of course would be happy to do so.
Very truly yours,
ZONNI, GINOCCHIO & TAY~OR
By:
LJS:dee
Enclosure
cc: City of Tustin
'Attention: Roy Gonzales
T 300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92680
LEONARD J. SILBERM~/q
CC:
City of Tustin
Attention: Chief of Police, Charles Thayer
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92680
CC:
Rourke & Woodruff
Attention: Bob Lavoie
1055 North Main Street, Suite 1020
Santa Aha, California.92701
P.S.:
Please be advised that applicant's new address is:
1917 East Broadway
Missoula, Montana 59801