Opinion ID: 1980702
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standing To Object To Settlement

Text: [¶ 6] Thurston first contends that the hearing officer erred in granting the motion for commutation of settlement over its objection. Title 39-A M.R.S.A. § 352 provides, in pertinent part: 1. Agreement. An insurer, self-insurer or self-insured group and an employer and employee may by agreement discharge any liability for compensation, in whole or in part, by the employer's payment of an amount to the employee if: A. The insurer, the employer, the employee or the employee's dependents petition the board for an order commuting all payments for future benefits to a lump sum; .... C. The provisions of this section have been met and the agreement has been approved by the board. .... 5. Approval. The board may not approve any lump-sum settlement unless there is an agreement pursuant to subsection 1 or, in the event the employer refuses to agree to the settlement, the board has reviewed the proposed agreement and finds it to be in the best interests of the parties, and unless: A. The employee has fully participated in the review process, except in circumstances amounting to good cause; B. The board finds the settlement to be in the employee's best interest in light of the factors reviewed with the employee under subsection 3; and C. In the case of a lump-sum settlement that requires the release of an employer's liability for future medical expenses of the employee, the board finds that the parties would be unlikely to reach agreement on the amount of the lump-sum payment without the release of liability for future medical expenses. 39-A M.R.S.A. § 352 (2001). [¶ 7] The key case interpreting section 352 is Curtis v. National Sea Products, 657 A.2d 320 (Me.1995). In Curtis, the hearing officers in the consolidated case concluded that, pursuant to section 352, employees could not force a lump sum settlement on an unwilling insurer, but an employee and insurer could enter into a settlement over the objection of the employer. Id. at 321. We affirmed, concluding that, pursuant to the plain language of section 352, subsection 5 permits a hearing officer to approve a commutation in two situations: (1) if there is an agreement pursuant to subsection 1, or (2) `in the event the employer refuses to agree to the settlement, the board has reviewed the proposed agreement and finds it to be in the best interest of the parties.'  Id. (quoting 39-A M.R.S.A. § 352(5)) (alterations in original). As we stated: [S]ubsections 1 and 5 contemplate an `agreement.' Subsection 5 makes clear that the Board may order a commutation of benefits over the objection of the employer, but not against the objection of the insurer. Id. Our strict interpretation of section 352 in Curtis controls the present case. The term insurer, as used in section 352, refers to the insurer that is a party to the settlement agreement, and not to nonsettling insurers or employers who may arguably be affected by the settlement agreement.