Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): or beneficiaries." AS 23.30.012(b). 38 . Dameron v. Neumann Bros., 339 N.W.2d 160, 161 (Iowa 1983) (after employee was awarded weekly PTD benefits, he applied to have them commuted to lump-sum award; commutation was permitted as being in employee's best interest); Codling v. Aztec Well Servicing Co., 89 N.M. 213, 549 P.2d 628, 632 (App.1976) (reversing Iump-sum commutation of PPI award where insufficient evidence supported exceptional circumstances to justify commutation); Bailey v. Colonial Freight Sys., Inc., 836 S.W.2d 554, 557 (Tenn.1992) (trial court must consider whether commutation of award is in employee's best interests as well as employee's ability to manage his money). 39 . 8 Arthur Larson & Lex K. Larson, Workers Compensation Law § 132.07[1] ( 8-59 (Alaska 1993) (<HOLDING>). 44 . Witt v. Watkins, 579 P.2d 1065, 1067 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that as 2330012 prohibits setting aside workers compensation c  r based on mistake (B) holding that because maryland law expressly creates right to file workers compensation claim action exists for wrongful discharge for termination based solely on the filing of a workers compensation claim (C) holding that the parties choiceoflaw agreement as relating to workers compensation was appropriately avoided where it offended state public policy as reflected in express provisions of the pennsylvania workers compensation act (D) holding that an agencys determination on a workers compensation claim was entitled to deference (E) recognizing duty to deal in good faith in workers compensation setting
Output (English): holding that the parties choiceoflaw agreement as relating to workers compensation was appropriately avoided where it offended state public policy as reflected in express provisions of the pennsylvania workers compensation act