Elizabeth Browning v. Schneider National, Inc., (IAB Hearing # 1215693) Decided November 23, 2010

The board has jurisdiction over the issue of whether the parties entered into a valid agreement for a commutation of benefits.

In Delaware, the only way to settle a workers’ compensation case is by way of commutation. This case involved the interesting issue of what happens when the parties attempt to do so but run into a dispute. The claimant had an accepted work injury to her low back that occurred on July 25, 2003, and began receiving compensation for total disability. The employer filed a petition to terminate those benefits, and the parties entered into negotiations for a commutation. However, the employer contended the agreement was for a full commutation, whereas the claimant contended it was for a commutation of the wage claim only. The claimant filed a complaint in the Chancery Court for specific performance of the alleged settlement, but the court declined to rule, finding that there was an adequate remedy at law. The employer then requested a legal hearing with the Board, and the claimant asserted the Board had no jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The Board ruled against the claimant and concluded that the relevant statute gives it jurisdiction over any action arising under the workers’ compensation law. They rejected the claimant’s contention that this was merely a contract dispute between her and the employer since this overlooked the fact that the alleged settlement was with respect to workers’ compensation benefits. The Board reasoned that since they must approve all commutations, there cannot be an enforceable commutation until the Board finds that one exists and approves it. The parties were directed to proceed to an evidentiary hearing with the Board to see if there had been a meeting of the minds and whether the alleged commutation should be approved.

Case Law Alert - 2nd Qtr 2011