Opinion ID: 1118924
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Travelers Insurance Co. v. Industrial Commission

Text: The Commission's reading of A.R.S. § 23-1025 is supported by the court of appeals' decision in Travelers, 21 Ariz. App. 298, 518 P.2d 1015. In that case, the insurance carrier entered into a settlement agreement with the employee-claimant after compensability had been determined but before the amount of lost earning capacity had been decided. The carrier paid the employee $25,000 and told him not to inform the Commission of the settlement. The employee, however, later went before the Commission alleging that he had accepted the settlement under duress. After a formal hearing, the Commission entered an award for unscheduled permanent partial disability. The Commission refused to consider the prior settlement or to offset the future monthly payments by the amount of the settlement. The court of appeals upheld the Commission's decision, characterizing the settlement of post-compensability claims as challeng[ing] the basic concept that the Industrial Commission shall control the proceedings under the Arizona Workmen's Compensation Act. 21 Ariz. App. at 299, 518 P.2d at 1016. The court, relying on A.R.S. § 23-1025, thought it well established that once a compensation claim has been accepted as compensable the Commission is without authority or jurisdiction to compromise or approve a compromise settlement.... Id.; accord Goodrich v. Industrial Commission, 13 Ariz. App. 402, 404, 477 P.2d 276, 278 (App. 1970). Review by this court was not sought in Travelers. Standing alone, Travelers supports the court of appeals' opinion in this case. Since Travelers was decided, however, its reasoning has been undermined by two cases, Gray v. Industrial Commission, 24 Ariz. App. 499, 539 P.2d 973 (App. 1975), approved per curiam, 113 Ariz. 296, 552 P.2d 766 (1976) and Jones v. Industrial Commission, 114 Ariz. 606, 562 P.2d 1104 (App. 1977).