Position paper presented at CSIMS 2024 by Hon. Robert G. Rassp, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Friends Research Institute (friendsresearch.org) Disclaimers: The opinions expressed in this article...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 8 August 2024 A Report of En Banc and Significant Panel Decisions of the WCAB and Selected Court Opinions of Related Interest, With a Digest of WCAB Decisions...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board The June 13, 2024 edition of the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation...
LexisNexis has selected some of the top “noteworthy” panel decisions issued by the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board during the period January through June 2024. The first...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board It is well understood that the California Insurance Guarantee Association...
Where the employer joined into a third-party settlement agreement that stated the employer agreed to a payment of a sum certain “in full satisfaction of the defendant/employer’s (and its workers’ compensation insurance carrier’s) right to subrogate against the third party settlement,” the waiver applied only to past workers’ compensation benefits paid. While the claimant testified it was her “understanding” that the employer waived its right to subrogation against future benefits payable to claimant—an earlier draft of the agreement had such a provision—the court concluded that claimant’s “understanding” of the corrected settlement agreement was insufficient evidence to support her burden. The court acknowledged that the corrected agreement’s language could reasonably be interpreted, as claimant suggested, to mean that the accepted sum completely satisfied the employer’s subrogation rights, both for the past and future. However, as the employer noted, there was no explicit waiver or mention of future subrogation rights contained within the corrected agreement. Thus, the term “full satisfaction” could also reasonably be interpreted to merely mean waiver of subrogation rights only to the extent of the employer’s accrued lien, which was specifically calculated in the agreement. Without a clear waiver of future rights, the employer had the absolute right of reimbursement.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is a leading commentator and expert on the law of workers’ compensation.
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Fortwangler v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Quest Diagnostics), 2015 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 140 (Mar. 31, 2015) [2015 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 140 (Mar. 31, 2015)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 117.01 [117.01]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.