| News News Archive  Email A Friend
April 19, 2024
Workers Compensation Bill 2024: One percent of employee’s salary to contribute to workers’ compensation fund in Kenya. April 15, 2024
Colorado Worker Shows Head Injury Happened as a Consequence of a Knock on the Head at Work April 4, 2024
Callfornia Division of Workers' Compensation Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee Meeting Scheduled for April 17, 2024 April 3, 2024
California Division of Workers' Compensation Posts Adjustments to Official Medical Fee Schedule (DMEPOS)
| | California Supreme Court Denies Workers' Comp Defense Attorney Richard Widom's Petition For Review. Stockwell Firm Alleges Widom Beat And Battered Stockwell Attorney Lisa Kerner
By Lonce LaMon - August 16, 2012
Yesterday, August 15th 2012, the California Supreme Court denied workers’ compensation defense attorney, Richard Widom’s, Petition for Review, which he filed on June 21st 2012 in the case of Lisa Kerner and The Stockwell Firm vs. The Los Angeles Superior Court (Richard Widom).
Richard Widom, who was fired in April of 2009 from the state-wide workers’ compensation defense firm of Stockwell, Harris, Widom, Woolverton & Muehl, after a 30-year-career with that firm, sued The Stockwell Firm in June of 2009 based on his allegations that his employment was terminated without cause “to avoid paying him the salary, benefits, and bonuses he would have earned through his retirement, and the four million dollars in deferred compensation to which he is entitled.”
The Stockwell Firm countersued Richard Widom alleging he beat and battered fellow Stockwell attorney, Lisa Kerner, who was also Widom’s wife at the time of this alleged battering. A serious physical altercation is alleged to have occurred on March 1st 2009 in the home of husband and wife Richard Widom and Lisa Kerner, which put the Stockwell Firm at risk. The Stockwell Firm also alleged Richard Widom diverted funds from Stockwell for his own personal purposes.
The case is in the midst of the pre-trial discovery phase in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, at 111 No. Hill Street in Downtown Los Angeles, in the court room of Judge Susan Bryant-Deason. After Richard Widom won many motions in this case earlier this year, The Stockwell Firm and Lisa Kerner appealed to the State of California, Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, with mandates for reconsideration. On April
|
... much that had previously been ruled in Widom's favor was now ruled by the Court of Appeal in Kerner and The Stockwell Firm's favor. As a result of this action, Richard Widom filed a Petition for Review to the California Supreme Court. |
26th 2012, this Court of Appeal published a decision overruling some decisions by the trial court that were made in favor of Richard Widom. As a result, much that had previously been ruled in Widom’s favor was now ruled by the Court of Appeal in Kerner and The Stockwell Firm’s favor. As a result of this action, Richard Widom filed a Petition for Review to the California Supreme Court.
One ruling from the trial court based on Widom’s arguments that was overturned by the Appeals Court was the one that affirmed that Lisa Kerner and George Woolverton were “in privity” because The Stockwell Firm supported Lisa Kerner extensively in her reports to the Los Angeles Police Department and the City Attorney, supported her in her civil tort case against Widom, and in filing her family law restraining orders. The Appeal Court overruled and stated Kerner and The Stockwell Firm were not “in privity”.
This argument by Widom of “in privity”, which means the two parties--in this case of Kerner and Stockwell--were so close together they had the same interests and were one-in-the-same, he used to claim “collateral estoppel” which would prevent Kerner and the Stockwell Firm from re-litigating the same issue against him. Widom had won the criminal case brought against him by his wife Lisa, and had filed a motion, which was granted, that he was factually innocent of the criminal charges alleged against him. The trial court had ruled in favor of Widom’s argument of “collateral estoppel” which disallows that a party be litigated again for the same issue twice, but the Appeal Court overturned it.
The Appeal Court asserted that if one is granted “factual innocence” that means the case is completely erased from the record within two years and stands exactly as if it never happened. A defendant who is declared factually innocent can therefore in the future declare with total impunity that the charges against him were never made. Henceforth, “collateral estoppel” in this instance is absurd and somewhat ludicrous, according to the Appeal Court, because of the argument that one cannot claim he is being sued on the same issue as before if the issue is treated as if it never happened and was never litigated before. If that makes sense…
The Appeal Court overruled on the trial court’s ruling that Widom was likely to prevail on his claim for punitive damages, therefore had a right to discovery of The Stockwell Firm’s financial condition. The Appeal Court declared Stockwell acted in good faith by reporting to the police and by hiring a private investigator. Stockwell was within their privilege of communicating with law enforcement agencies. As well, Stockwell acted in good faith because of their belief that Richard Widom did indeed beat and batter Lisa Kerner. Thus, these were the arguments used by the Appeal Court to conclude Stockwell did not act with malice, therefore, Widom’s claims for punitive damages would not be highly likely to prevail.
|
__May11th2017.gif)
.gif)