widow and dozens of cases scores of cases with this one law firm a one an unknown how many hundreds of cases there must be nationwide the present the same fact pattern where the widow recognizes that the  shore death benefits remedy is better than any likely recovery in wrongful death and therefore absence herself or himself from that wrongful death proceeding while other family members who have no rights under the longshore act want to pursue a wrongful death tort remedy against the asbestos defendants the same situation pertained in this case except of course there is not the factor of the a l j finding the widow's testimony to be not very credible there is the same situation in that in each case there is no evidence whatsoever that the widow contrary to her clear election at the outset not to have anything to do with the tort proceeding in each case the widow stays out of that and accepts no money from settlements of the of the wrongful death actions in neither case did the widow sign anything or accept money and in neither case could the child of the deceased and no in the verducci case of this is not the widow's daughter this is the widow's step children who brought the wrongful death action not that i don't think that's a difference that makes makes a difference between the two cases but there is that and there's no indication at all that the the children would even of been interested in taking care of the widow but in each case again even though the employer's potential subrogation interest in reducing its death benefits liability even though that was implicated by the widow's refusal to proceed against tortfeasor this is the scope of thirty three g does not extend to the fact that the forfeiture that the jays in the board have affected here once again we're back to whether the widow entered into a rd party settlement so as to forfeit her rights on the launch or act now again as i was saying earlier the law distinguishes this is this whole subrogation question distinguishes one person entitled to compensation the injured employee during his life time from another person and titled the compensation was whether the amount of the settlement was in fact less than the amount of compensation to which they would be entitled the actual breakdown of the recovery between the among the individual plaintiffs in that wrongful death action had to be compared with what each of those individuals would be entitled to under the act so there's one person entitled to compensation until the death and the estate then succeeds to his interests after his death to the effect to the extent they haven't already been taken care of than to the extent it's launcher rights of not already been determined and his rd party case remains open as to some defendants this is typical of the asbestos actuations but the widows rights do not a rise until the time of death and the only thing that would be offset against her long shore act rights are recoveries that she has for the wrongful death again for her loss of consortium or lifetime loss of consortium recovery would not be offset against the law the death benefits as for a different cause of action completely i'm not sure what i have not done my best to eliminate the court on as of this case in the discussion of previous case i invite the courts for the questions so i think so thank you thank you and in the line between who what type of benefit is paid is a data death in this instance prior to the mr verducci state of death or pre death settlements of one million and fifty dollars fifty dollars that's be a accepts of record the net to the plaintiffs which would be mr verducci and the for whatever use the he would disperse to his wife to six hundred and thirty nine thousand dollars after death the settlements were eighty six thousand two hundred and seventy one the net fifty three thousand is also correct that that th daughter step daughter elegant alexandria and that been so the issue is whether or not again thirty three f and g apply to the good post death settlement and that must be about making the calculations of the benefits to which they would all would have been entitled to the date of the two settlements in cern and pfizer the the total total amount of money she would have been tied to it and use it the no money was because no there is no evidence so the release is provided for the heirs and again the widow is an heir using the same guidelines as as a personal representative of the state that was those were signed with the daughter but the daughter was again acting on behalf of the what widow and what's the evidence in this case at that in this case it's so she was relying upon her daughter to disperse the funds and she was acting in effect as an agent for to be the daughter farther for the widow the the and that's are her testimony again but someone else in charge of the money but he's acting on behalf of the widow and it sounds like there's a lot of cases do you have any authority to say that that's an up to support agency relationship no most of a yes there are so many of these cases but the main the main reason or you can  documenting includes the errors in these two and the those errors don't necessarily have to sign the agreement to be binding and they don't necessarily have to have a name placed in the these are all done as part of a scheme to take the money from the lawful then the person conceived mother the mother surviving widow and still give it to other people other persons usually and always family members the authority is the that the contract there were lease is binding upon the family members each each of the ails of the two l j is in these there are many factors that go into determining whether or not the contract would be binding but there's no doubt in this instance for the reasons that both judges state stated and the b r be approved that the not involved in any of the types of weapons things that occurred for that mother or timid not in their well but course seeking they were seeking to avoid thank you for your attention thank you very much that two points i'd like to emphasize here st the daughter could not the stepdaughter excuse me in this case could not have been an agent authorized to do something on behalf of the widow which the widow had made perfectly clear from the outset that she wanted nothing to do with that she certainly was not authorized to settle duchies wrongful death rights miss is for do she did not want to assert any such rights or to settle any such rights so her stepdaughter could not have been her representative authorized to do that the question to nd the question whether these releases that the stepdaughter did sign would bind the widow by the fact that they referred to heirs even though they also spelled out the other errors and didn't mention the widow the question of whether those releases would bind the widow if she then saw to sue the asbestos defendants that would be the relevant question is is her cause of action released by the release is that the stepdaughter signed but that is not the question we're not here to determine whether mr duke she can sue the asbestos defendants she doesn't want to never has wanted to and by the time these settlements were executed by the stepdaughter the time limitations had already expired on her ability  not that's not the only case that does this this court in the force decision and a couple of others have recognized that each recover each plaintiff recovery goes to offset under section thirty three dollars f only that person's rights under the longshore act the children's rights are one thing and the surviving spouses rights are another thing one may be fo closed and yet the other remains alive on behalf of the scores of widows similarly situated to those in these two cases who have received nothing from any tort suits and who never signed anything or authorized anyone to sign anything releasing putative tortfeasor from liability to them we ask the court simply to apply the statute as it is written and since the claimants here did not enter into settlements their rights are not barred thank you very much thank you very much employees international st as director of office of workers compensation program has been submitted on the briefs so that concludes our our docket for this morning appreciate everybody's presentations that will be in recess until tomorrow thank you