Montoya v. Aral Security, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the primary purposes of Section 52-5-17 are “(1) prohibition against double recovery, and (2) protection of the employer’s right to reimbursement from the proceeds of the thud-party action”
• stating that double recovery is prohibited as a matter of law
• noting that “once the employer has begun payment of compensation benefits to the [worker], such payment operates as an assignment of the cause of action against the third-party tortfeasor, pro tanto for payments made under the Act.”
• recognizing Section 52-5-17 as protecting employer’s right to reimbursement
• recognizing an employer’s right to reimbursement
• “[S]ueh [compensation] payment operates as an assignment of the cause of action against the third-party tortfeasor, pro tanto for payments made under the Act.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).