Meeks v. Newcomb
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
July 16, 2020, Decided
No. 20-11325 Non-Argument Calendar

Reporter
2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 22107 *

RITA MEEKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ROBERT LYNN NEWCOMB, CELADON TRUCKING, Defendants-Appellees.

Notice: PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

Prior History: [*1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. D.C. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00193-TCB.

Meeks v. Robert Lynn Newcomb, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230328 (N.D. Ga., Mar. 3, 2017)

PER CURIAM:
Rita Meeks appeals the denial of her motion to enforce a settlement agreement. Meeks, Robert Lynn Newcomb, and Celadon Trucking executed a settlement agreement under which Meeks agreed to dismiss the claims of the Estate of Alan Hembree against Newcomb and Celadon in exchange for their promise to pay $100,000. When Meeks later learned that Celadon declared bankruptcy, she moved to enforce the settlement agreement against Newcomb. Because the settlement agreement plainly binds Newcomb and Celadon to pay $100,000, without qualification as to how much each must pay, it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny Meeks’s motion. We reverse the denial of Meeks’s motion, vacate the dismissal [*2] of her action, and remand for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND
Meeks, in her capacity as Administrator and surviving heir of Hembree, sued following a car accident in 2012, wherein Hembree died after crashing into the back of a Celadon tractor-trailer driven by employee Newcomb. Meeks sued Newcomb and Celadon individually. That is, Meeks sued Newcomb for his allegedly negligent actions and sued Celadon for the allegedly negligent actions of an employee in the course of business. The parties mediated their claims and eventually entered into a settlement agreement, whereby Meeks released her claims against Newcomb and Celadon in exchange for $100,000. Although sued individually, Newcomb and Celadon shared a single attorney at all times pertaining to this suit. And neither Newcomb nor a Celadon corporate representative appeared at the mediation negotiations. Instead, their shared attorney executed the agreement.
A couple months after the parties executed their agreement, Meeks had yet to receive payment. So she moved for enforcement of the settlement agreement. In her motion, she explained that Newcomb and Celadon together agreed to pay her a total of $100,000 in exchange for the release [*3] of the claims against them, so she requested the district court enter judgment against both defendants for that amount. Meeks, upon learning that Celadon had just filed for bankruptcy and that claims against it were stayed, amended her motion the following day to request that judgment be entered only as to Newcomb.
The district court denied Meeks’s motion. It accepted Newcomb’s request that it look at emails exchanged after the execution of the settlement agreement. It concluded that these exchanges reflected the parties’ intention to bind only Celadon to paying any amount of money. And, to some extent, the district court appears to have also looked at the parties’ understanding before execution of the settlement agreement.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
HN1[ ] We review a decision whether to enforce a settlement agreement for an abuse of discretion, with an error of law constituting an abuse of discretion. Managed Care Advisory Grp., LLC v. CIGNA Healthcare, Inc., 939 F.3d 1145, 1153 (11th Cir. 2019). But we review de novo the interpretation of that agreement. Id.

III. DISCUSSION
HN2[ ] The Georgia law of contracts governs our analysis of how to construe the parties’ settlement agreement. Ins. Concepts, Inc. v. W. Life Ins. Co., 639 F.2d 1108, 1111-12 (5th Cir. 1981). “Where the language of a [settlement agreement] is definite and unambiguous, [it] will be enforced according to [*4] its terms.” Id. at 1112. Whether an ambiguity exists “is a question of law to be resolved by the court.” Id. If no ambiguity exists, then there is no “need to resort to surrounding circumstances to construe the meaning of the agreement.” Id.; cf. H&E Innovation, LLC v. Shinhan Bank Am., Inc., 343 Ga. App. 881, 808 S.E.2d 258, 263-64 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017) (reviewing “emails that followed the [execution] of the [s]ettlement” as “additional parol evidence” only after concluding that the agreement contained an ambiguity). To be clear, although “[t]he cardinal rule of construction is to determine the intention of the parties,” Georgia courts “look to the contract alone to find the intention of the parties” when “the terms of a written contract are clear and unambiguous.” Safe Shield Workwear, LLC v. Shubee, Inc., 296 Ga. App. 498, 675 S.E.2d 249, 252 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Atlanta Dev. Auth. v. Clark Atlanta Univ., Inc., 298 Ga. 575, 784 S.E.2d 353, 358 (Ga. 2016).
The terms of the settlement agreement here contain no ambiguity. The settlement agreement binds Meeks to release all claims against Newcomb and Celadon in exchange for $100,000:
The Plaintiff(s) Rita Meeks, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Alan Hembree[,] has/have agreed to accept, and the Defendants Robert Lynn Newcomb and Celadon Trucking Services has/have agreed to pay the sum of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000)[.]
Terms: Dismissal with Prejudice . . .
This memorandum [*5] contains all the essential elements of the terms and conditions of the settlement in this case.
So Newcomb was a listed party who agreed to pay Meeks $100,000 for the release of her claims against him. Although the agreement does not specify how much of the $100,000 each would pay to Meeks, it plainly binds both Celadon and Newcomb to ensure payment of $100,000. Newcomb cannot escape that result now that his co-obligor has declared bankruptcy. Because the terms of the settlement agreement are unambiguous, the district court was required to enforce the agreement as written. It erred by reviewing extrinsic evidence to establish intent. See Ins. Concepts, 639 F.2d at 1111-12; Atlanta Dev. Auth., 784 S.E.2d at 358 (Ga. 2016); Safe Shield, 675 S.E.2d at 252.
To the extent Newcomb argues that his attorney lacked even the apparent authority to bind him to this agreement, we are unpersuaded. HN3[ ] Georgia law accepts “[a]n attorney of record [as a] client’s agent,” such that “an act of an agent within the scope of his apparent authority binds the principal.” Hayes v. Nat’l Serv. Indus., 196 F.3d 1252, 1254 (11th Cir. 1999) (alteration accepted) (internal quotation marks omitted). And Georgia considers an attorney’s authority to be “plenary unless it is limited by the client and that limitation is communicated to opposing parties.” Id. So a client will be “bound by his attorney’s [*6] agreement to settle a lawsuit, even though the attorney may not have had express authority to settle, if the opposing party was unaware of any limitation on the attorney’s apparent authority.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ford v. Citizens & S. Nat. Bank, Cartersville, 928 F.2d 1118, 1120-21 (11th Cir. 1991) (explaining the same). Newcomb points to no evidence that establishes that his attorney actually had no authority to bind him to a settlement agreement, let alone any evidence that suggests Meeks should have been aware that Newcomb had so limited his attorney’s authority. Cf. Omni Builders Risk, Inc. v. Bennett, 313 Ga. App. 358, 721 S.E.2d 563, 565-66 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011) (concluding that an attorney lacked apparent authority to bind a company when he signed the attorney’s blank but the corporate representative, who was present during negotiations, did not sign the blank explicitly reserved for his signature).
Tellingly, Newcomb is careful not to argue that the settlement agreement is null and void in its entirety as to him—that is, he does not contend that he and Meeks never agreed to dismiss the claims against him. Instead, he tries to smuggle in the extrinsic evidence we could not consider to interpret the settlement agreement to argue that Meeks knew that Celadon and Newcomb had some understanding as to who would pay the settlement sum. [*7] But that Meeks may have generally known of an understanding does not suggest that Meeks knew that their joint attorney had no authority to bind Newcomb to a settlement agreement. HN4[ ] It would be error to slice the attorney’s apparent authority so finely without a clear communication of that limitation. See id. at 565 (“[F]rom the perspective of the opposing party, in the absence of knowledge of express restrictions on an attorney’s authority, the opposing party may deal with the attorney as if with the client . . . .”).

IV. CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the denial of Meeks’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement, VACATE the dismissal of the action, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Neutral As of: July 22, 2020 5:29 PM Z
Evans v. Roger’s Trucking, Inc.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Northern Division
July 7, 2020, Decided; July 7, 2020, Filed
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-cv-157-DCB-JCG

Reporter
2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118793 *; 2020 WL 3803906

KALVIN EVANS, PLAINTIFF v. ROGER’S TRUCKING, INC. and TAMMY NADY, DEFENDANTS

Prior History: Evans v. Roger’s Trucking, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180577 (S.D. Miss., Oct. 18, 2019)

Order
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Roger’s Trucking, Inc. (“Roger’s Trucking”) and Tammy Nady (“Nady”)’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 60] and Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 97] on Plaintiff’s Medical Damages Claims from Dr. Dinesh Goel and/or the Medical Clinic of Mississippi.

Background
This case arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on October 4, 2018, in Jackson Mississippi. At the time of the accident, Roger’s Trucking had employed Nady to drive a tractor-trailer. Plaintiff Kalvin Evans (“Evans”), who was driving north on Terry Road, alleges that Nady, who was traveling east bound on Highway 80, ran a stop sign and caused a collision between the two vehicles. Because of the accident, Evans went to the Medical Clinic of Mississippi and saw Dinesh Goel, M.D. (collectively, “The Clinic”) for medical [*2] treatment. The total cost of Evans’ treatment was $18,884.58. The Clinic and Evans entered into the following payment agreement (“the First Assignment”):
“I, Kalvin Evans (PATIENT) hereby grant and assign to Medical Clinic of Mississippi and/or Dinesh Goel, M.D. (“The Clinic”), all rights to payment of The Clinic’s charges for my medical treatment by The Clinic from my claim for personal injury which occurred on or about Oct. 4 2018 (ACCIDENT). . . . I hereby further give a lien on my case to The Clinic for the amounts owed to The Clinic against any and all proceeds of any settlement, judgment, or verdict for my personal injury claim which may be paid to you, my attorney, or myself, as the result of the injuries for which I have been treated or injuries connected within… In exchange for the assignment and lien agreed to herein, the undersigned, on behalf of The Clinic, agrees to forgo any rights The Clinic may have to collect from the patient, except via any settlement, judgment, or verdict as discussed above.” [ECF 60-1].
The First Assignment states that there is both an “assignment and lien.” It also states that The Clinic will not pursue collection against Evans, except via a settlement, [*3] judgment, or verdict.
Defendants moved to join Dr. Goel and the Medical Clinic of Mississippi as necessary parties to the suit as a result of The Clinic’s partial assignment of the claim. [ECF No. 47]. Under Mississippi law, “[t]he general rule is that where there has been a partial assignment leaving the assignor owner of a part of the claim, an assignee, in bringing suit, should join either as complainants or defendants all the parties in interest, so that the entire matter may be settled at one time, and a single decree may determine the duty to each claimant, and protect the rights and interests of each party in interest.” Hull v. Townsend, 186 So.2d 478, 480 (Miss. 1966). Magistrate Judge John C. Garguilo found that the executed agreement between Evans and The Clinic consisted of an assignment and a lien, noting that:
Here, there is a written agreement indicating that it is an assignment and “further” a lien. (ECF No. 57-1). An assignment and a lien are different mechanisms. An assignment is “a transfer of rights or property from one party (the ‘assignor’) to another (the ‘assignee’), in which the assignor intends to vest in the assignee a present right in the thing assigned. The transfer must be so far complete as to deprive [*4] the assignor of his or her control over the thing assigned.” 1 MS Prac. Encyclopedia MS Law § 7:1 (2d ed.) (citing Serv. Fire Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Reed, 220 220 Miss. 794, 72 So. 2d 197, 198 (1954).
A lien is a “legal right or interest that a creditor has in another’s property, lasting usu[ally] until a debt or duty that it secures is satisfied.” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). “The term ‘lien’, as generally used, is a charge or encumbrance upon property to secure the payment or performance of a debt, duty, or other obligation. It is distinct from the obligation which it secures.” United States v. Phillips, 267 F.2d 374, 377 (5th Cir. 1959) (citing 53 C.J.S. Liens §1, p. 826).
See [ECF No. 67]. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)(2), Magistrate Judge Garguilo found that The Clinic was a necessary party and ordered the Plaintiff to add Dr. Goel and Medical Clinic of Mississippi as parties to this lawsuit. See id.
On December 2, 2019, Plaintiff Evans filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order to join non-parties. [ECF No. 69]. Evans also filed an assignment (“The Second Assignment”) of claims in which The Clinic assigned to Evans all of its rights, claims, title, and interest in and to The Clinic’s charges for medical treatment to Evans arising from:
“his 2018 motor vehicle accident and claim for personal injury and any claims or causes [*5] of action that Kalvin Evans has asserted, is asserting, or will assert in the cause of action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Northern Division style[d] Kalvin Evans v. Roger’s Trucking, Inc. and Tammy Nady.”
[ECF No. 68-1]. Magistrate Judge Garguilo found that, “[b]y executing the new assignment, [T]he Clinic and Dr. Goel have relinquished ownership interest in Plaintiff’s right to payment of [T]he Clinic’s and Dr. Goel’s charges for Plaintiff’s medical treatment arising from Plaintiff’s 2018 motor vehicle accident.” [ECF No. 94]. Accordingly, on April 24, 2020, Magistrate Judge Garguilo granted the Motion to Reconsider and held that the Plaintiff is not required to add The Clinic and Dr. Goel as parties.
This Court allowed the parties to submit additional briefing to address the reconsidered order’s impact on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Having read the additional briefing, the Court finds that the motion for partial summary judgment is now ripe for review.

Standard of Review
A party is entitled to summary judgment if the movant “shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment [*6] as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The Court is not permitted to make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence at the summary judgment stage of litigation. See Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156, 164 (5th Cir. 2009)(citing Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir. 2010)). All facts and inferences must be made in “the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” See Sierra Club, Inc. v. Sandy Creek Energy Assocs., L.P., 627 F.3d 134, 138 (5th Cir. 2010)(citation omitted).

Discussion
Defendants argue that Evans’ medical bills from Dr. Goel are not actual economic damages under Mississippi law. “‘Actual economic damages’ means objectively verifiable pecuniary damages arising from,” among other things, “medical expenses and medical care.” Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-60(1)(b). Defendants claim that “the only ‘objectively verifiable’ medical expense is one which is willingly paid by the payor and willingly accepted by the provider as complete payment.” [ECF No. 61] at p. 4. Defendants assert that “phantom” medical bills that “no one has paid, and that neither Plaintiff was liable to pay, cannot be considered ‘actual economic damages.'” [ECF No. 61] at p. 4.

Collateral Source Rule
Mississippi adheres to the “collateral source rule,” which states that a defendant tortfeasor is “not entitled to have damages for which he is liable reduced by reason of the fact that the plaintiff has received compensation for his injury by [*7] and through a totally independent source, separate and apart from the defendant.” Central Bank of Mississippi v. Butler, 517 So.2d 507, 512-513 (Miss. 1987). The collateral source rule is a substantive rule of law, as well as an evidentiary rule. The Fifth Circuit has explained the rule as follows:
In its simplest form, the rule asks whether the tortfeasor contributed to, or was otherwise responsible for, a particular income source. See Bourque v. Diamond M. Drilling Co., 623 F.2d 351, 354 (5th Cir. 1980). If not, the income is considered “independent of (or collateral to) the tortfeasor”, and the tortfeasor may not reduce its damages by that amount. [Davis v. Odeco, Inc., 18 F.3d 1237, 1243 (5th Cir. 1994)]. In practice, the rule allows plaintiffs to recover expenses they did not personally have to pay. See id. Without the rule, however, a third-party income source would create a windfall for the tortfeasor. Id. at 1244. Thus, the rule reflects a policy determination: better a potential windfall for the injured plaintiff than the liable tortfeasor. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 920A cmt. b. (Am. Law Inst. 1979) (“[I]t is the position of the law that a benefit that is directed to the injured party should not be shifted so as to become a windfall for the tortfeasor”).”
Deperrodil v. Bozovic Marine, Inc., 842 F.3d 352, 358-59 (5th Cir. 2016)(emphasis added).
“Sources of compensation that have no connection to the tortfeasor are inevitably collateral.” Davis v. Odeco, Inc., 18 F.3d 1237, 1244 (5th Cir. 1994). The Mississippi Supreme Court has discussed the [*8] expansive nature of the rule, stating: “Accordingly, the plaintiff’s recovery will not be reduced by the fact that the medical expenses were paid by some source collateral to the defendant such as by a beneficial society, by members of the plaintiff’s family, by the plaintiff’s employer, or by an insurance company.” Clary v. Global Marine, Inc., 369 So.2d 507, 509 (Miss. 1979)(internal citations omitted). “Several courts within this district have held that the collateral source rule encompasses gratuitous medical care, expenses written off by medical care providers, and adjustments to medical bills.” Rodriguez v. GPI MS-N, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-255-RHW, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148567, 2017 WL 2835749, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Jun. 1, 2017).
Defendants rely on Justice Smith’s dissent in Brandon HMA, Inc. v. Bradshaw, to support their claim that the collateral source rule is inapplicable to these facts. See 809 So.2d 611 (Miss. 2001)(J. Smith dissenting). In Bradshaw, the medical provider argued on appeal that the trial judge erred by allowing the plaintiff to recover the full amount of her medical bills, despite the fact that Medicaid had “written off” a portion of the bills. The Mississippi Supreme Court rejected that argument and “held that Medicaid payments, like insurance payments or any other sort of collateral-source payments, cannot be used by a defendant [*9] ‘to reduce the cost of its own wrongdoing.'” Chickaway v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110602, 2012 WL 3236518, at *1 (S.D. Miss. 2012)(citing Bradshaw, 809 So.2d at 618). Justice Smith’s dissent in Bradshaw, states:
A plaintiff may not be compensated for damages he has not suffered. Bradshaw did not pay the excess expenses, and neither did Medicaid pay them on her behalf. The policy behind the collateral source rule simply does not apply where the plaintiff has incurred no expense, obligation, or liability in obtaining the services for which he or she seeks compensation. A recipient of free medical care provided at the expense of taxpayers should not be able to recover the excess from the tort feasor and pocket the windfall. As have other jurisdictions dealing with this question, I would hold that there is no right to recover medical expenses extinguished by operation of the statutes governing Medicaid.
The Defendants argue that Justice Smith’s reasoning should extend to the facts before the Court. However, the Mississippi Supreme Court disagreed with Justice Smith’s interpretation of the collateral source rule. Additionally, the dissent is narrowly tailored to the statutes governing Medicaid, which are not at issue in this case.
Defendants next argue that the Legislative intent behind the enactment [*10] of tort reform, which includes Miss. Code Ann § 11-1-60 (1972), was “to dispense with a legal scheme that punished defendants by allowing windfalls to the plaintiff instead of a fair award of compensation.” [ECF No. 61] at 6. Although Mississippi has enacted various tort reform measures, “it has not sought to abolish or limit the collateral source rule.” Chickaway, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110602, 2012 WL 3236518, at n.19. Courts continue to apply the policy considerations that support the collateral source rule. Stated simply, “[i]f there is a windfall from which one is to benefit, the injured plaintiff and not the tortfeasor should receive that windfall.” Id.
Therefore, payments that are made, “either voluntarily or contractually, by a third party who was not a joint tortfeasor would not serve to diminish the tortfeasor’s liability.” MS Prac. Trial Handbook for Lawyers § 32:28 (3d ed.)(citing Am. Jur. 2d, Damages § 566). Stated another way, “a tortfeasor cannot use the moneys of others (insurance companies, gratuitous gifts, etc.) to reduce the cost of its own wrongdoing.” McGee v. River RegionMedical Center, 59 So.3d 575, 581 (Miss. 2011)(quoting BrandonHMA, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 809 So.2d 611, 618 (Miss. 2001)); see also, Clary v. Global Marine, Inc., 369 So.2d 507, 510 (Miss. 1979)(reversing a lower court decision that failed to apply the collateral source rule when an employer voluntarily paid the medical expenses of its employee, writing “Exxon’s voluntary payment of these items [*11] should not have been allowed to operate in reduction of [Plaintiff’s] recovery against [the Defendant]”).
Here, The Clinic is an independent source that is separate from the Defendants. Any indemnification or decision by The Clinic to forgo collection of Evans’ medical bills should not reduce the damages or costs, if any, caused by Roger’s Trucking and Nady. The fact that Evans may not be personally liable to The Clinic does not negate the applicability of the collateral source rule, which can apply even if an injured party is wholly indemnified for his loss. While Evans has not yet paid The Clinic and will only pay upon receipt of a judgment or settlement, such monetary damages are determinable. This is true regardless of whether Evans must pay his medical bills. If there is a windfall from which one of the parties is to benefit, the injured plaintiff and not the tortfeasor should receive that windfall.

Unreasonable Medical Expenses
The Defendants also claim that Evans’ medical damages are not “objectively verifiable” because The Clinic’s medical bills are “fictitious ab initio or inflated in anticipation of litigation.” The Clinic referred Evans to Open MRI, a third-party diagnostic [*12] clinic, for MRIs. See [ECF No. 60] at p. 3. The Clinic charged Evans $3,500.00 per MRI, while paying Open MRI merely $500 per MRI. Id. Defendants assert that the medical bills are inflated because of Dr. Goel’s “practice of charging excessive amounts for third party diagnostic procedures Dr. Goel never performed in his office but instead contracted out to others at a lower price.” [ECF No. 61] at p. 4.
Concerns over unnecessary or unreasonable medical bills can be contested during trial. “Proof that medical, hospital, and doctor bills were paid or incurred because of any illness, disease, or injury shall be prima facie evidence that such bills so paid or incurred were necessary and reasonable.” Miss. Code Ann. § 41-9-119. However, the statute does not “cut off the right of a defendant to controvert the presumption established by the introduction of such bills,” and to present testimony regarding “the reasonableness of the charges for medical expenses.” McCay v. Jones, 354 So.2d 1095, 1101-1102 (Miss. 1978). “[T]he opposing party may rebut necessity and reasonableness by ‘proper evidence’ and then the question is for the jury.” Boggs v. Hawks, 772 So.2d 1082, 1085 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000)(citing Jackson v. Brumfield, 458 So.2d 736, 737 (Miss. 1984)). Therefore, this is not an issue to be decided through summary judgment.

Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the collateral [*13] source rule applies to the instant case. Therefore, the fact that The Clinic is indemnifying Evans — absent a judgment, verdict, or settlement — does not disqualify his medical bills from being classified as actual economic damages. As to the concern over The Clinic inflating the costs of the medical bills, that issue is best addressed at trial.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Roger’s Trucking, Inc. and Tammy Nady’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Medical Damage Claims [ECF No. 60] and Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 97] are DENIED.
SO ORDERED this the 7th day of July, 2020.
/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE