Court Opinion

ID: 9943972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 15:37:46.030492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:54:31.933829
License: Public Domain

Obviously, the court in its use of the wordimprovident was not casting any reflection upon relator's attorneys but was only giving expression to the general principle of law that a proposed settlement, pursuant to M.S.A. 176.69, is not fair and reasonable if it is, in the light of the purposes of the workmen's compensation act, improvident as to the employe. His welfare and that of the public are closely related. It is true in the instant case that employe had property consisting of a home valued at $10,000, a store building valued at $15,000 from which he received a monthly rental of $130, and other personal property. In carrying out the purpose of the workmen's compensation act, the employe's personal financial status, however, is of little significance. If we bear in mind, as pointed out in the main opinion, that a lump-sum settlement — as a departure from the normal mode of periodic payment of disability benefits — should be allowedonly with a cautious regard for the welfare of the employe andthe protection of the public, then it becomes clear that whether a settlement is improvident under § 176.69 is not dependent upon the employe's financial status. The purpose of the act is to provide the employe with a stabilized income over an extended period. An employe's possession of considerable assets at the time of the proposed settlement is no assurance that such assets will be preserved for the future. The normal statutory mode of *Page 365 
making periodic payments was designed to protect both thepublic and the employe by providing a stabilized disability income over an extended period of time. As an exception to this general rule, an employe's financial status may become a factor where he is about to lose his home unless a mortgage thereon is paid, or where a lump-sum settlement may serve to rehabilitate the individual, if the amount thereof, when combined with other assets of the employe, is large enough to enable him to become established in the pursuit of other and lighter work. In the instant case, no such exception was involved.
Relator was represented with fidelity and ability. It was not the fault of any attorney that § 176.69 had not heretofore been construed.
Subject to the foregoing explanation, relator's petition is denied.
So ordered.
MR. JUSTICE FRANK T. GALLAGHER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.