Opinion
No. 3074.
Decided May 31, 1939.
BILL IN EQUITY, seeking reformation of a receipt and a release given in a workmen's compensation case, and for further compensation. Trial by a master, who found and reported in substance the following facts.
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant. In the course of his employment he injured his back on September 25, 1935, and was taken to a hospital. He left the hospital a month later, when he was told by the insurance company's adjuster that the defendant's policy covered care for only thirty days and that further treatment must be at the plaintiff's own expense.
Thereafter the plaintiff and the adjuster conferred several times concerning a possible settlement. The adjuster claimed that there was no liability, or only doubtful liability, and asserted that the plaintiff could take what he offered or get nothing. An agreement for settlement was finally reached on December 13, 1935, when the plaintiff received $96 "in final settlement and satisfaction of all claims for compensation." His doctor's and hospital bills were also paid as a part of the consideration for the receipt and the release given by him.
The receipt was entitled "Standard Form for Final Compensation Settlement Receipt." It was prefaced by these sentences: "Read Carefully Before Signing. This is a Final Settlement Receipt. Signing it Means That Compensation Payments Cease." At the close of the body of the receipt, just above the plaintiff's signature, was the statement: "I was able to return to work on the 22nd day of November, 1935, at a wage of $24 per week." This was a misstatement, apparently, but made with the plaintiff's full knowledge of the actual fact.
The plaintiff also gave a release under seal to the defendant covering all claims, whether in law or in equity, and signed a statement that he understood that he could accept compensation or proceed at common law, and that he elected to take compensation.
The plaintiff then knew, better than anyone else, what was his physical condition, and that he was not cured. The adjuster was relying upon the assurance by the plaintiff's doctor, as well as that of the insurance company's doctor, that the plaintiff could then do light work. But, knowing his own condition, the plaintiff was not misled by anything that the adjuster said. There was no fraud, duress or mistake.
The master therefore found that the agreement was binding. If the settlement were not binding, he found that the compensation for the plaintiff's disability would total $296. Deducting the $96 already paid, there would be a balance of $200.
The report of the master came before the Superior Court for disposition, and the plaintiff seasonably moved for judgment in the sum of $200. The motion was denied, and the plaintiff excepted. The master's report was approved. Transferred on the plaintiff's bill of exceptions allowed by Burque, C. J.
Arthur Olson, for the plaintiff, furnished no brief.
Faulkner Bell (Mr. Bell orally), for the defendant.
The plaintiff based his motion for judgment upon clause in the receipt providing that the payments were made "in final settlement and satisfaction of all claims for compensation subject to review as provided by Law." The final modifying words are meaningless in themselves, and there is nothing in their context, or in our statute, or practice, which enables us to interpret them otherwise than as suggesting resort to such equitable relief as the plaintiff invoked in his bill. The grounds for such relief not having been found, and no question having been raised as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings actually made (Tuftonboro v. Willard, 89 N.H. 253, 262), the order is
Exception overruled.
All concurred.