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

Heading: Jones v. Industrial Commission

Text: In Jones, compensability had been established, but the claimant and the insurance carrier disagreed over the extent of the claimant's lost earning capacity. They eventually agreed to stipulate to a certain percentage of lost earning capacity and the Commission accepted that stipulation. The parties' stipulation was, unsurprisingly, the product of a settlement agreement. That agreement, however, was not presented to the Commission until the claimant applied for commutation of her lost earning capacity award into a lump sum pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-1067. The parties had agreed that if the Commission refused to reduce the award to a lump sum, the percentage of the claimant's lost earning capacity would be adjusted upward. 114 Ariz. at 607-08, 562 P.2d at 1105-06. In deciding whether to grant the claimant a lump-sum award, the Commission inquired about the underlying settlement agreement. The Commission's authority to consider the terms of the agreement was challenged on appeal. Thus, the court of appeals was presented with the precise issue raised in this case: can the parties settle a disputed issue as to [lost earning capacity] by agreement? 114 Ariz. at 609, 562 P.2d at 1107. Jones answered this question in the affirmative, holding that the same considerations leading to approval of pre-compensability compromise agreements, are present with respect to lost earning capacity. 114 Ariz. at 610, 562 P.2d at 1108.