2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 48 - Labor › 48-140 - Compensation; lump-sum settlements; conclusiveness; exception.

48-140.
Compensation; lump-sum settlements; conclusiveness; exception.
Any lump-sum settlement by agreement of the parties pursuant to section 48-139 shall be final and not subject to readjustment if the settlement is in conformity with the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act, unless the settlement is procured by fraud. All awards of compensation made by the compensation court, except those amounts payable periodically, shall be final and not subject to readjustment.
Source
Laws 1913, c. 198, § 41, p. 597;
R.S.1913, § 3682;
Laws 1917, c. 85, § 17, p. 213;
Laws 1921, c. 122, § 1, p. 527;
C.S.1922, § 3064;
C.S.1929, § 48-141;
Laws 1935, c. 57, § 26, p. 200;
C.S.Supp.,1941, § 48-141;
R.S.1943, § 48-140;
Laws 1975, LB 187, § 5;
Laws 1986, LB 811, § 58;
Laws 1989, LB 410, § 1;
Laws 1993, LB 757, § 11;
Laws 2009, LB630, § 7.
Annotations
1. Lump-sum settlement
2. Approval
3. Miscellaneous
1. Lump-sum settlement
Lump sum settlement is not final unless approved as required by act. Miller v. Schlereth, 151 Neb. 33, 36 N.W.2d 497 (1949).
Lump sum settlement must conform to statutory requirements, including filing copy with and approval by compensation court. Ashton v. Blue River Power Co., 117 Neb. 661, 222 N.W. 42 (1928).
One relying upon lump sum settlement must bring himself within statute. Ostegaard v. Adams & Kelly Co., 113 Neb. 393, 203 N.W. 564 (1925).
Lump sum settlement is final, and is not subject to modification as in case of periodic payments. Bailey v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 99 Neb. 109, 155 N.W. 237 (1915).
Sections 48-139 and 48-141 and this section emphasize the finality of a lump-sum settlement and only contemplate "readjustment" if the "settlement" itself is procured by fraud; the statutes do not speak to readjusting underlying "awards" allegedly procured by fraud. Hunt v. Pick's Pack-Hauler, 23 Neb. App. 278, 869 N.W.2d 723 (2015).
Lump-sum settlements in workers' compensation actions cannot be modified in the future or be considered when determining future workers' compensation awards, because such awards are "final." Dukes v. University of Nebraska, 12 Neb. App. 539, 679 N.W.2d 249 (2004).
2. Approval
The provisions in this section which bar proceedings to modify an award of compensation payable periodically over a period of less than six months are invalid as an unreasonable classification. Snyder v. IBP, Inc., 229 Neb. 224, 426 N.W.2d 261 (1988).
Where settlement was never approved by workmen's compensation court, it was ineffective to defeat claim for compensation. Riggins v. Lincoln Tent & Awning Co., 143 Neb. 893, 11 N.W.2d 810 (1943).
An agreement to pay compensation must be approved by compensation court or it is void, and part payment will not make such agreement actionable at common law. Duncan v. A. Hospe Co., 133 Neb. 810, 277 N.W. 339 (1938).
Compensation commissioner has exclusive original jurisdiction of claims arising under compensation law. Zurich General Accident & Liability Ins. Co. v. Walker, 128 Neb. 327, 258 N.W. 550 (1935).
Award is subject to modification, if it covers period over six months, part of which has elapsed at time award is made. Harmon v. J. H. Wiese Co., 121 Neb. 137, 236 N.W. 186 (1931).
If court finds disability will not continue for more than six months and fixes compensation therefor, court cannot at subsequent term change that judgment, but, if finding is that disability will continue for more than six months, court may, upon application, modify after six months expires. Hanley v. Union Stock Yards Co., 100 Neb. 232, 158 N.W. 939 (1916).
3. Miscellaneous
A finding by the Workers' Compensation Court that an alleged injury is covered by the Workers' Compensation Act is not necessarily a prerequisite to a settlement agreement which includes a program of vocational rehabilitation paid for by the employer or its insurer. Miner v. Robertson Home Furnishing, 239 Neb. 525, 476 N.W.2d 854 (1991).