Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Wilmot v. Crescent City Marine Ways
Citation: 304 F. App'x 514Docket: No. 07-72668
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; December 15, 2008; Federal Appellate Court
Robert Wilmot appeals a final order from the Benefits Review Board affirming an administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision to grant Crescent City Marine Ways a credit against Wilmot’s permanent partial disability award, based on a previous settlement for a similar injury. Wilmot contends that the Board erred in finding substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s conclusion that the settlement payment was entirely for permanent partial disability. The court affirms the Board's decision, conducting a review focused on legal errors and adherence to the substantial evidence standard. The analysis of the settlement agreement shows substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's and Board's conclusion regarding the $37,500 payment as compensation for Wilmot’s permanent partial disability. The agreement indicated that Wilmot had reached maximum medical improvement and returned to work, aligning with the definition of permanent partial disability. It distinctly addressed temporary disability benefits and stated that all medical benefits would be calculated separately. Although the agreement suggested that a scheduled award for permanent partial disability of the right leg would be $14,781.60—less than half of the actual payment—it acknowledged disputes regarding the nature and extent of the permanent impairment. Wilmot’s examining physician rated his impairment at 25-30% disability. Furthermore, the payment form categorized the $37,500 as payment for "permanent partial (non-scheduled)" disability. Despite the incorrect classification as "non-scheduled," the characterization of the payment as for "permanent partial" disability rather than temporary disabilities provides persuasive evidence regarding the settlement's nature. The judgment is affirmed, and this disposition is deemed not suitable for publication nor precedent-setting, except as outlined in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.