- 14 -
(e.g., a ruined credit rating)." The Supreme Court distinguished
such personal injuries from "legal injuries of an economic
character" such as those arising out of the unlawful deprivation
of the opportunity to earn wages through wrongful termination.
Id.
Consequently, damages received for lost wages in connection
with the settlement of economic rights, such as those arising out
of a breach of contract, are not excludable from income under
section 104(a)(2). Id.; Robinson v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 116,
126 (1994), affd. in part, revd. in part on another issue 70 F.3d
34 (5th Cir. 1995) and cases cited therein.
Similarly, recovery for "business or property" is separate
and distinct from recovery for personal injury. Genty v.
Resolution Trust Corp., 937 F.2d 899, 918 (3d Cir. 1991); Berg v.
First State Ins. Co., 915 F.2d 460, 464 (9th Cir. 1990); Rylewicz
v. Beaton Servs., Ltd., 888 F.2d 1175, 1180 (7th Cir. 1989); see
Reuter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 339 (1979) (holding that
the phrase "business or property" in the context of the Clayton
Act, ch. 323, sec. 4, 38 Stat. 731, 15 U.S.C. sec. 15, does not
denote physical or emotional harm to a person.) In Zimmerman v.
HBO Affiliate Group, 834 F.2d 1163, 1169 (3d Cir. 1987), the
Court of Appeals held in this regard as follows:
A plaintiff seeking recovery under RICO must allege
injury "in his business or property" caused by violation of
the Act. In Reuter v. Sonotone, 442 U.S. 330, 99 S.Ct.
2326, 60 L.Ed.2d 931 (1979), the Supreme Court construed
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011