Opinion ID: 2494292
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Written Approval

Text: With regard to the City's first assignment of error, we look again to the wording of the statute. Section 23:1102 reads, in pertinent part: Employee or employer suits against third persons causing injury; notice of filing A. (1) If . . . the employee . . . brings suit against a third person . . ., he shall forthwith notify the other in writing of such fact and of the name of the court in which the suit is filed, and such other may intervene as party plaintiff in the suit.    B. If a compromise with such third person is made by the employee . . ., the employer . . . shall be liable to the employee or his dependents for any benefits under this Chapter which are in excess of the full amount paid by such third person, only after the employer. . . receives a dollar for dollar credit against the full amount paid in compromise, less attorney fees and costs paid by the employee in prosecution of the third party claim and only if written approval of such compromise is obtained from the employer or insurer by the employee . . ., at the time of or prior to such compromise.    If the employee or his dependent fails. . . to obtain written approval of the compromise from the employer . . . at the time of or prior to such compromise, the employee . . . shall forfeit the right to future compensation, including medical expenses. Notwithstanding the failure of the employer to approve such compromise, the employee's . . . right to future compensation in excess of the amount recovered from the compromise shall be reserved upon payment to the employer . . . of the total amount of compensation benefits, and medical benefits, previously paid to or on behalf of the employee, exclusive of attorney fees arising out of the compromise; . . . . Such reservation shall only apply after the employer or insurer receives a dollar for dollar credit against the full amount paid in compromise, less attorney fees and costs paid by the employee in prosecution of the third party claim.    Section 23:1102 requires that any compromise be approved in writing either at the time of or prior to the compromise. In his oral reasons for judgment, the workers' compensation judge stated: Granted, the city was not present. It chose not to attend; however, introduced into evidence was a series of letters and emails to and from the R.M.I. attorney and parties who were at the mediation. The essence of this correspondence seems to be that the city was fully aware of the mediation and presented a demand that its lien be paid in full, minus the amount of a one-third attorney's fees [sic]. And, accordingly, R.M.I. forwarded the exact amount of its lien, about 500,000 [sic] at the time, to the mediator. The mediator, a particularly well known and respected attorney in this area, managed to get R.M.I. precisely what it asked for, the entirety of the lien less attorney's fees. The statute requires written approval; however, it does not specify the precise language or format of the approval. When an employee [sic] informs a mediator in writing of his precise demand, right down to the very penny, and the mediator delivers every cent requested, it's difficult to describe that scenario as anything short of, quote, prior written approval, as is allowed by the statute. R. at 146. As indicated by the court of appeal, factual findings in workers' compensation matters are subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of review. Banks v. Industrial Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 96-2840 (La.7/1/97), 696 So.2d 551. In the instant matter, however, whether or not the workers' compensation judge committed manifest error in determining that the City had given its prior written approval to the settlement is of no moment. Section 23:1102(B) includes a buy back provision, which, when an employee fails to obtain his employer's written approval of settlement as required by the statute, allows the employee to reserve his right to future compensation upon payment to the employer or insurer of the total amount of compensation benefits, and medical benefits, previously paid to or on behalf of the employee, exclusive of attorney fees arising out of the compromise. . . La.Rev.Stat. § 23:1102(B). As found by the workers' compensation judge and conceded by the City during argument, the City was paid back the full amount of its lien, less one-third attorney's fees. Thus, Mr. Henry's right to future compensation was reserved. The issue of whether or not the City had given written approval of the settlement, is therefore moot and need not be resolved.