The Delaware Superior Court affirms a decision of the Industrial Accident Board that denied the employer’s motion to enforce a commutation.
Ms. Stansbury was injured in a work accident on February 25, 2020. The employer acknowledged a left shoulder injury, but disputed injuries to the cervical and lumbar spines. The claimant retained an attorney and filed a petition for recognition of the alleged cervical spine injury and permanent impairment benefits. According to the claimant’s attorney at the time, Ms. Stansbury agreed to settle her case for $22,000 minus an expert witness reimbursement of $2,000. About a half hour before a deposition of the employer’s medical expert, the claimant told her attorney she did not want to proceed with the settlement. The attorney advised that he would withdraw as counsel if she did not proceed with the settlement. He testified that Ms. Stansbury agreed to settle the case. The claimant testified that she did not agree to move forward with the settlement.
The deposition did not proceed, and two days later, the claimant’s attorney accepted a commutation offer within authority. Ms. Stansbury subsequently saw Dr. Rastogi, who advised she needed surgery for her neck and that it was related to the work accident. When the claimant again raised concerns about the settlement, her attorney withdrew as counsel.
The surgery was performed. Ms. Stansbury retained a new attorney and informed the employer that she did not want to proceed with the agreement. The employer filed a Motion to Enforce the Written Settlement Agreement. The Board denied the motion and concluded that the global settlement did not appear to be in the claimant’s best interest, as required by Section 2358(a).
The employer appealed the determination and attempted to argue that the “best interest” concept of Section 2358 was vague and that the Board’s authority to “veto” agreements violates freedom of contract. The Superior Court immediately dismissed the freedom of contract argument and advised that the Board’s statutory discretion under the Workers’ Compensation Act clearly permitted it to render decisions on settlements of the parties. The court did not believe there was a legitimate question of law raised by the appeal. The court opined that there was substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that the global agreement was not in the best interest of Ms. Stansbury. Specifically, the court accepted Ms. Stansbury’s testimony about her own “best interest,” emphasized that the settlement did not contemplate compensation for the neck injury, and suggested that she may have been inadequately represented by counsel when the attorney threatened to withdraw representation if she did not proceed with the settlement. The Board’s decision was affirmed.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No. 7, July 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.