- 15 - for the physical injuries that he claimed he sustained as a result of the incident. Furthermore, Ms. Pearson testified that Mr. Rodman paid the entire settlement amount at issue to peti- tioner on account of his physical injuries. As discussed below, Ms. Pearson’s testimony that Mr. Rodman paid that entire amount on account of petitioner’s physical injuries is belied by the terms of the settlement agreement. Nonetheless, her testimony supports our finding that Mr. Rodman’s dominant reason in paying petitioner the settlement amount at issue was to compensate him for claimed physical injuries relating to the incident. We have found that Mr. Rodman’s dominant reason in paying petitioner the settlement amount at issue was to compensate him for his claimed physical injuries relating to the incident. However, the settlement agreement expressly provided that Mr. Rodman paid petitioner a portion of the settlement amount at issue in return for petitioner’s agreement not to: (1) Defame Mr. Rodman, (2) disclose the existence or the terms of the settlement agreement, (3) publicize facts relating to the inci- dent, or (4) assist in any criminal prosecution against Mr. Rodman with respect to the incident (collectively, the nonphysi- cal injury provisions). The settlement agreement does not specify the portion of the settlement amount at issue that Mr. Rodman paid petitioner on account of his claimed physical injuries and the portion of suchPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011