Horton v. Holly Corporation et al

Filing 139

OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Gregory K Frizzell ; granting 134 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Re: 133 Order, Ruling on Motion for Relief ) (hbo, Dpty Clk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
GREG HORTON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HOLLY CORPORATION;
HOLLY REFINING & MARKETING TULSA, L.L.C.; and
BROCK SERVICES, LTD.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 10-CV-524-GKF-FHM

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes on before the court on plaintiff’s Application for Approval of
Settlement [Dkt. # 134]. On April 9, 2012, this court heard plaintiff’s Unopposed Application
for Preliminary Approval of Settlement [Dkt. # 122] and Plaintiff’s Supplement to his
Unopposed Application for Preliminary Approval of Settlement [Dkt. # 125].
On April 18, 2012, this court entered an order [Dkt. # 133] granting plaintiff’s motions.
In accordance with Oklahoma law, the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Court on December 4,
2012, reviewed and approved this court’s order. [Dkt. #134, Ex. 1, Miscellaneous Order, Gregory
Scott Horton v. Holly Frontier Corp, et al., Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Case No. 201009246X].
The plaintiff seeks final approval of a compromised settlement between plaintiff and the
defendant Brock Services, Ltd. (“Brock”) in the amount of $475,000.00 consistent with this
court’s order of April 18, 2012 [Dkt. # 133]. Brock does not oppose plaintiff’s Application for
Approval of Settlement. Non-party insurer Zurich American Insurance Co. (“Zurich), however,
opposes the application and requests that this court reconsider the "just and reasonable"

apportionment herein in light of the Worker's Compensation Court’s denial of Zurich’s Motion to
Suspend Benefits by order filed July 27, 2012. [Dkt. #135, Ex. 5, Miscellaneous Order, Gregory
Scott Horton v. Holly Frontier Corp, et al., Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Case No. 201009246X].
The court declines to reconsider the apportionment of settlement proceeds approved in
the April 18, 2012 order. It is clear from the transcript of the hearing on plaintiff’s motion for
preliminary approval that the parties, and in particular Zurich, understood the Oklahoma
Workers’ Compensation Court had yet to resolve plaintiff’s claims for permanent partial
disability and partial disfigurement. [Dkt. #132, TR at 18:9-19:2]. Further, the court, in its April
18, 2012 order expressly recognized the workers’ compensation court’s jurisdiction to determine
“what, if any, medical care, impairment, disability, and/or disfigurement occurred as a result of
the injury or exposure caused by the alleged acts or omissions of Defendant Brock and the extent
to which Zurich is entitled to suspend further benefits due to Plaintiff in his worker’s
compensation claim.” [Dkt. #133 at 2 (emphasis added)].
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff’s Application
to Approve Settlement is granted and this court’s order of April 18, 2012 [Dkt. # 133] is hereby
adopted and confirmed as final.
ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2013.

2