- 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 such
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011