Court Opinion

ID: 9884564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:02:00.423355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:39.551493
License: Public Domain

HANSON, Justice,
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I would discharge the writ of certiorari on the grounds that Kline has waived his right to review by this court because he is bound by the rules of the Fund, which expressly limit the parties to a single appellate review and which select the WCCA to provide that review. Kline is bound by the waiver contained in those rules because the rules were agreed to by his union in a collective bargaining agreement, as authorized by MinmStat. § 176.1812 .(2002).1 The majority’s refusal to enforce the rules of the Fund will place Minnesota at odds with all of the other states that have implemented comparable reforms to their workers’ compensation systems. More importantly, it will deny to the Minnesota legislature, which had the broad power to create the workers’ compensation system in the first instance, the ability to correct aspects of that system that are no longer achieving their original purpose.
I. The Purposes of Section 176.1812
I view the enactment of section 176.1812 as an appropriate effort by the legislature to redirect the workers’ compensation system to its original purpose of providing a timely and cost-effective process for the determination and payment of workers’ claims. That effort was not undertaken in isolation, but reflects the recognition in many states that the formal claims process *28has grown overly complex, adversarial and expensive. At stake is the ability of employers to remain competitive within their region, which in turn benefits workers and their unions by adding or retaining jobs.

A. National Workers’ Compensation Reform

Beginning in the early 1990’s, major reform efforts were undertaken in several states to introduce or expand alternate dispute resolution mechanisms in the workers’ compensation system. These efforts, often referred to as the privatization of workers’ compensation, were designed to reduce the cost of the system without decreasing benefits, by offering an alternative to the formal hearing process.2 The formal process was perceived to be too complex, too expensive and too slow.3
Although there were some variations in the several state reform measures, all shared a common format of introducing ADR mechanisms to streamline the process. Some states provided broadly for voluntary mediation or arbitration when agreed to by an individual claimant and the employer. See, e.g., Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 152, §§ 10B-10C (2004); Mo.Rev. Stat. § 287.460 (2004); S.D. Codified Laws § 62-7-37 (2004).4 Other states more narrowly authorized workers to opt out of the formal claims process by creating ADR systems in collective bargaining agreements made by the workers’ union with “qualified employers.” To date, eleven states, including Minnesota, have adopted this latter mechanism.5
Until today, none of these states has upheld any challenge to the authority of its legislature to enact such a reform or to the constitutionality of the private ADR mechanisms that have been created by the various collective bargaining agreements. For example, in California, a claimant alleged that the denial of access to the formal claim process violated the state constitution by creating an “encumbrance” on the workers’ compensation system. Costa v. Workers’ Comp.App. Bd., 65 Cal.App.4th 1177, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 289 (1998). The court rejected that challenge, holding that the legislature’s broad powers to create a compensation system included the power to reform the system by authorizing the creation of ADR systems in collective bar*29gaining agreements. Costa, 77 Cal. Rptr.2d at 294.

B. Minnesota’s Enactment of Reform Measures

Prior to the enactment of section 176.1812, Minnesota was reported to have one of the highest workers’ compensation cost structures in the upper Midwest, with insurance rates of 30 to 40 percent higher than neighboring states like Wisconsin. See Dennis J. McGrath, Workers’ Comp Bill Passes; IS DFLers Cross Line in Senate Plan, Star Tribune, May 20, 1995, at 1A; Scott Carlson, Minnesota Companies’ Workers’ Comp. Costs Expected to Drop in 1996, Saint Paul Pioneer Press, September 9, 1995, at 1C. Faced with this competitive disadvantage, the legislature enacted section 176.1812 to offer workers who were members of unions that bargained with “qualified employers” the opportunity to opt out of the formal claims system in favor of a more streamlined, less costly ADR system.
Section 176.1812 is narrow. It does not apply to all workers’ compensation claims. Instead, it only authorizes the creation of ADR systems in collective bargaining agreements made by unions with “qualified employers” or “qualified groups of employers,” (essentially those who are self-insured or whose annual premiums exceed high threshold levels). Minn.Stat. § 176.1812, subd. 1. Section 176.1812 is also optional. It provides that the parties to collective bargaining agreements may continue to use the formal process or may choose to establish an ADR system that will “supplement, modify, or replace” the formal claims’ process. Minn.Stat. § 176.1812, subd. 1(a).

C. Waiver of a Second Appellate Review

One of the important cost-reducing features of section 176.1812 is that it authorizes the parties to streamline appellate review of a claim by limiting it to one review, to be provided:
either by the workers’ compensation court of appeals in the same manner as an award or order of a compensation judge or, in lieu of review by the workers’ compensation court of appeals, by the office of administrative hearings, by the district court, by the Minnesota court of appeals, or by the supreme court, in the same manner as the workers’ compensation court of appeals
MinmStat. § 176.1812, subd. 1(a). This language authorizes the parties to provide for appellate review by selecting any one of the listed bodies and, conversely, to waive the right to appellate review by any of the other listed bodies.
Kline’s union opted to waive appellate review by this court when it entered into a collective bargaining agreement that adopted Rule 6.5 of the Fund. By doing so, Kline’s union selected the WCCA as the body to provide appellate review and waived the right to appellate review by any other body.

D.Judicial Review under the Uniform Arbitration Act

The decision of Kline’s union to select an executive branch court to provide the single appellate review, and to waive a second appellate review by any judicial branch court, does not mean that there could be no judicial review of an arbitration award. Separate judicial review is always available to a worker under the Minnesota Uniform Arbitration Act (MUAA). The MUAA, which applies to all voluntary arbitration agreements, provides for judicial review to affirm, vacate, modify or correct an arbitration award. Minn.Stat. § 572.18-.20 (2002). The MUAA applies to an arbitra*30tion that is conducted under an arbitration clause contained in a collective bargaining agreement. Eisen v. State, 352 N.W.2d 731, 734 (Minn.1984).
Of course, the scope of judicial review under the MUAA is narrow. The MUAA authorizes a court to vacate an award only where it (1) was “procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means”; (2) the arbitrator was partial or corrupt or engaged in prejudicial misconduct; (3) the “arbitrators exceeded their powers”; (4) “[t]he arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause * * * or refused to hear evidence material to the controversy” or conducted the hearing “to prejudice substantially the rights of a party”; or (5) “[tjhere was no arbitration agreement * * Minn.Stat. § 572.19. subd. 1. Further, the procedure for seeking review under the MUAA is a petition to the district court, which generally is to be filed within 90 days after receiving a copy of the award. Minn.Stat. § 572.19, subds. 1, 2.
Thus, the precise issue before this court is not whether the rules of the Fund can preclude judicial review. Judicial review was available to Kline in the district court under the MUAA and the rules of the Fund do not purport to override the MUAA. The issue before this court is only whether the parties to a collective bargaining agreement can voluntarily adopt ADR rules that waive a second, broader form of judicial review by limiting direct appellate review to the WCCA. That issue turns on the scope of the authorization of private ADR systems granted by the legislature in section 176.1812, which in part depends on whether there are any constitutional impediments to a broad grant of authority.
II. Constitutional Concerns with Section 176.1812
The majority opinion weaves together a series of constitutional “concerns” to support a narrow construction of section 176.1812 — “It seems highly doubtful that the legislature intended the limitation of review of an arbitrator’s decision to the WCCA, particularly where such a limitation necessarily implicates due process and separation of powers concerns.” But those constitutional concerns are without merit, essentially because the establishment of a private ADR system in a collective bargaining agreement is optional and does not involve state action or the delegation of judicial power to a state executive agency. To the contrary, the establishment of a private ADR system in a collective bargaining agreement constitutes a voluntary waiver of those constitutional concerns, and that waiver is binding on all union workers.

A. The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Jurisdiction

Kline misconstrues the effect of section 176.1812 by arguing that the legislature cannot eliminate or reduce the jurisdiction given to this court under Minnesota’s constitution. While it undoubtedly is true that the legislature could not enact laws that would reduce this court’s subject matter jurisdiction, section 176.1812 does not attempt to do so. Instead, the section authorizes unions and employers, by private agreement, to create ADR systems that waive the right to resort to this court’s jurisdiction. The section has no impact on and does not alter this court’s jurisdiction under the constitution.
Of course, the judicial branch has an inherent interest in providing a forum for the resolution of justiceable controversies, but the judiciary does not require, or even permit, parties to bring claims that are not justiceable, as where the parties have waived their right to court review. This principle was best articulated by the Maryland court as follows:
*31The scope of a judicial proceeding may be narrowed by the agreement of the parties and thus without an act of the Legislature. In the absence of procedural rules or statute, the parties themselves may, by agreement, limit the issues that a court will consider within a given dispute. Examples of such agreements include a proceeding on stipulated facts, the pre-trial entry of a consent order defining the issues for trial, or a more formal arbitration agreement under which the parties agree to limited judicial review of the arbitration determination.
Sadler v. Dimensions Healthcare Corp., 378 Md. 509, 836 A.2d 655, 675 n. 12 (2003). It also was recognized by this court in Falgren v. State Bd. of Teaching, 545 N.W.2d 901, 906 (Minn.1996). There we held that a teacher who chose to have his discharge heard before an arbitrator rather than his school board was entitled only to the narrow judicial review of the arbitrators award provided by the MUAA and had waived his right to the broader judicial review that would have been available on appeal from a decision of the school board. Id. at 905-06.

B. Due Process and Separation of Powers

Kline makes both due process and separation of powers’ arguments in support of his claim that section 176.1812 could not preclude a second appellate review by this court. We have said that due process requires “the right of appeal from or review of a decision regarded by a litigant as unjust,” Hunter v. Zenith Dredge Co., 220 Minn. 318, 326, 19 N.W.2d 795, 799 (1945), and separation of powers makes it necessary for the legislature to provide the right to judicial review of compensation determinations made by executive branch judges, Breimhorst v. Beckman, 227 Minn. 409, 433, 35 N.W.2d 719, 734 (1949). But these principles do not apply where a party has waived the right to a particular form of judicial review and where the compensation determinations are made by a private arbitrator, not by an executive branch judge.

1. Waiver

It is well established that a private party may waive the right of judicial review or a particular form of review. In fact, the situation here strongly parallels that present in Falgren, where we said:
Falgren had a choice whether to contest his discharge in a hearing before the school board or before an arbitrator. Falgren chose a hearing before an arbitrator. Thus, we agree with the Board; by choosing to have his discharge heard before an arbitrator, Falgren waived his rights to broader judicial review. Along with whatever benefits Falgren felt his decision to have his termination hearing before an arbitrator offered, he must also accept the drawbacks.
545 N.W.2d at 906. Similarly here, Kline (acting through his union) had a choice to contest his compensation claim before a compensation judge or an arbitrator. The choice of a compensation judge would have provided for broader appellate review by this court on appeal from a decision of the WCCA. But the choice of an arbitrator, by agreeing to adopt the rules of the Fund, means that only one direct appellate review will be provided, by the WCCA, and the only judicial review available is the narrow review of a motion to vacate the award under the MUAA. See Minn.Stat. § 572.19, subd. 1. By opting for arbitration, Kline retained the narrow judicial review available under the MUAA but waived the broader judicial review that would otherwise have been available under the workers’ compensation laws.

*32
2. State Action

In addition, the creation of a private ADR system does not present due process or separation of powers concerns because it does not involve state action. Two Florida decisions directly addressed the “state action” issue in connection with constitutional challenges to similar workers’ compensation reform. In Gassner v. Bechtel Constr., 702 So.2d 548 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1997), the court affirmed the decision of the compensation judge that she lacked jurisdiction because Gassner’s exclusive remedy was to follow the ADR procedures adopted in the collective bargaining agreement. The court stated:
Finally, appellant contends that section 440.211, Florida Statutes (1995), is unconstitutional to the extent it allows the collective bargaining agreement to establish an alternative dispute resolution system that diminishes procedural protections chapter 440 would otherwise afford a claimant. A great many such diminutions are alleged, including some that pertain to resolving disputes concerning attorney’s fees. Denial of equal protection, deprivation of due process and of the right to counsel, in violation of both state and federal constitutions, are all claimed. Mr. Gassner also argues that the failure of the judge of compensation claims to assume jurisdiction denied him access to court, in violation of article I, section 21 of the Florida Constitution.
All of these arguments overlook the fact that the collective bargaining agreement between Bechtel and Mr. Gassner’s union does not constitute state action. See generally Kintzele v. J.B. & Sons, Inc., 658 So.2d 130, 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“The parties themselves confer jurisdiction in arbitration proceedings by the agreements they make.”).
[[Image here]]
As a matter of constitutional law, permitting private parties to establish dispute resolution procedures by contract violates no provision of the Florida Constitution, and is not the sort of state action to which the Fourteenth Amendment speaks.
Id. at 554.
Similarly, in Ariston v. Allied Bldg. Crafts, 825 So.2d 435, 437-38 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2002), the court affirmed the dismissal of a petition for compensation benefits because the collective bargaining agreement required the claimant to use the ADR procedures. In rejecting the claimant’s argument that his union could not waive his right to a judicial forum, the court said that any principle against waiver by the union did not apply because
the legislature both established the workers’ compensation system and enacted section 440.211, expressly approving the development by employers and unions of alternative systems of resolving compensation disputes. [The claimant’s] union did not bargain away his inviolable right to utilize chapter 440; the legislature declared that it is not an inviolable right, and instead permitted the [collective bargaining agreement] mechanism to provide the only avenue for recovery of compensation benefits.
Id. at 437.

a. Social considerations

The majority suggests that state action may be found because of society’s interest in the workers’ compensation system. To the extent that the workers’ compensation system is the product of “social legislation,” it should be enough to say that, under separation of powers, the social aspects of that system are best addressed by the legislature, not by the court, and the legislature did address those social aspects when it enacted section 176.1812. The *33court should not substitute its view of the social utility of the use of private ADR systems for workers’ compensation claims for the view already expressed by the legislature when it authorized those systems in section 176.1812.
Moreover, in a case relied upon by the majority, the United States Supreme Court determined that there was no conflict between the use of arbitration and the social policies that underlie a statutory claim:
As [appellant] contends, the [Age Discrimination in Employment Act] is designed not only to address individual grievances, but also to further important social policies. We do not perceive any inherent inconsistency between those policies, however, and enforcing agreements to arbitrate age discrimination claims. It is true that arbitration focuses on specific disputes between the parties involved. The same can be said, however, of judicial resolution of claims. Both of these dispute resolution mechanisms nevertheless also can further broader social purposes.
Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 27, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991) (internal citations omitted).

b. Delegation of governmental functions

The majority suggests that “[t]he statutory authorization for private ADRs essentially delegates the quasi-judicial function of the agency to private parties, making actions of those parties in that capacity state action.” But the cases relied upon by the majority do not support that proposition. In both Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc., 500 U.S. 614, 625, 111 S.Ct. 2077, 114 L.Ed.2d 660 (1991) and Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 660, 64 S.Ct. 757, 88 L.Ed. 987 (1944), the government had delegated to a private party the power to perform an essential governmental function. Edmonson dealt with the use of peremptory challenges to assist in the selection of a jury in a civil trial. 500 U.S. at 623-24, 111 S.Ct. 2077. The Court noted that a jury is a “quintessential governmental body, having no attributes of a private actor.” Id. at 624, 111 S.Ct. 2077. Smith dealt with the use of primary elections to select nominees for the general election. 321 U.S. at 652-53, 64 S.Ct. 757. The Court observed that “[p]rimary elections are conducted by the [political] party under state statutory authority” and extensive state regulation, which makes the political party “an agency of the state in so far as it determines the participants in a primary election.” 321 U.S. at 663, 64 S.Ct. 757.
In contrast, section 176.1812 does not authorize private parties to perform an essential governmental function. Instead, it authorizes private parties to opt out of the governmental process. This, of course, is why arbitration is called “alternative dispute resolution” — it does not use the governmental system (in this case, the executive branch quasi-judicial system) but provides a private alternative. The resolution of a private dispute is a role that the government will perform when the parties have not agreed otherwise, but it is not an essential governmental function that should be imposed on parties that have agreed to an alternative mechanism. To the contrary, this court has actively encouraged the use of ADR mechanisms and they are widely used to resolve private disputes of all kinds.

a Statutory claims

The majority suggests that state action exists because the compensation claim being arbitrated is a “statutory claim.” But this ignores the clear statement in Edmon-*34son that the “private use of state-sanctioned private remedies does not rise, by itself, to the level of state action.” 500 U.S. at 622, 111 S.Ct. 2077. And the primary authority relied upon by the majority for this proposition actually supports the opposite conclusion. In Gilmer, the Court held that a statutory claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act may be the subject of an arbitration agreement. 500 U.S. at 35, 111 S.Ct. 1647. The Court stated, “Although all statutory claims may not be appropriate for arbitration, ‘[h]av-ing made the bargain to arbitrate, the party should be held to it unless Congress itself has evinced an intention to preclude a waiver of judicial remedies for the statutory right at issue.’ ” 500 U.S. at 26, 111 5.Ct. 1647 quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 628, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 87 L.Ed.2d 444 (1985). The Court went on to say that the burden was on the party opposing arbitration “to show that Congress intended to preclude a waiver of a judicial forum for ADEA claims.” Id. The Court held that, although the ADEA did not expressly authorize arbitration, there was nothing in the text or the legislative history that precluded it and arbitration was not inconsistent with the purposes of the Act. Id. at 26-27, 111 S.Ct. 1647.6
Here, we do not need to speculate about whether the legislature intended to allow the parties to waive a judicial forum because section 176.1812 says so expressly.

d. Breimhorst

Finally, the majority notes that “[t]he administrative procedures created to implement workers’ compensation laws survived constitutional separation of powers concerns, in part, because the agency’s awards and determinations were subject to review by this court.” (citing Breimhorst, 227 Minn, at 433, 35 N.W.2d at 734). While this proposition is correct in the abstract, it has no application here because it only applies to legislative action that precludes judicial review of decisions of an executive agency. It does not apply to the agreements of private parties that waive the right to a broader form of judicial review of decisions made by a private arbitrator.
The legislative authorization for private parties to adopt an ADR system does not vest quasi-judicial powers in any executive agency. Instead, it allows private parties to avoid the quasi-judicial powers of the agency, submit their disputes to an ADR process and waive the right they would otherwise have to obtain a broader form of judicial review of any award. Moreover, the legislative authorization is purely permissive. Workers and their unions are not required to adopt any ADR system, but can continue to use the formal claims process. Thus, the authorization and approval of private agreements that create ADR systems does not constitute “state action,” and does not provide a basis for a separation of powers’ claim.
Further, as noted earlier, judicial review of the arbitrator’s award is available under the MUAA. Section 176.1812 does not preclude that judicial review; it only authorizes the parties to agree to waive a second form of judicial review by limiting direct appellate review to the WCCA.
*35III. The Plain Meaning of Section 176.1812
If these constitutional concerns have no substance, then they likewise should have no influence on the construction of the section 176.1812. Instead, that section should be construed according to the plain meaning of its words. See Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2002); Burkstrand v. Burkst-rand, 632 N.W.2d 206, 210 (Minn.2001). The plain meaning of the words used in section 176.1812 is that the legislative authorization to create ADR systems in collective bargaining agreements includes the authorization to adopt an ADR system that does not include an appeal to this court.
First, subdivision 1(a) states that the ADR system may “modify, or replace the procedural or dispute resolution provisions of this chapter.” This suggests that the parties can agree to bypass all procedural provisions, including the provision for appeal from the WCCA to this court.
Second, subdivision 1(a) states that the ADR system may provide that the decision of the arbitrator is subject to review “either” by the WCCA “or, in lieu of review by the [WCCA],” by the office of administrative hearings, by the district court, by the Minnesota court of appeals, or by the supreme court.” The words “either” and “or, in lieu of’ make clear that the statute contemplates only one appellate review, which can be restricted to any one of the bodies mentioned, such as a restriction to the WCCA.7 And the body selected to perform the single appellate review need not be “judicial” because the statute specifically authorizes the selection of the WCCA.
Kline argues that the addition of the words, that any review by the WCCA is to be “in the same manner as an award or order of a compensation judge,” implies the right to a second review by the supreme court because such a second review would be available for a decision of the WCCA that is based on an order of a compensation judge. But these words can only reasonably be read to incorporate the scope of review that is normally used by the WCCA, not the entire statutory appellate process. This is made clear by the inclusion of the same words, “in the same manner as the [WCCA],” in describing the review that would be conducted by the supreme court if the ADR procedure provided for a single review by this court. Minn.Stat. § 176.1812. Obviously, any review by the supreme court would be final and these words could not be read to imply a second review by any other body.
Finally, Kline argues that the limitation of review to the WCCA makes the agreement void under subdivision 4 of section 176.1812 because it would diminish the procedural rights of a claimant from those available in formal claims proceedings before a compensation judge or on appeal from a decision of a compensation judge. But the prohibition in subdivision 4 against diminishing an “employee’s entitlement to benefits” refers to the schedule of benefits that are authorized by the Act, not to the procedural rules. As stated in Gassner, the argument that procedural differences between the ADR system and the Act might diminish an employee’s entitlement to benefits “reveals significant confusion about the distinction [the statute] draws between benefits and (alternative) procedures.” 702 So.2d at 552. The court noted that ADR procedures would necessarily be different because they were created as “alternatives.” Id. The court stated:
If, as appellant argues, the agreement creates procedural requirements for the receipt of benefits that [the statute] does *36not impose, the agreement also creates procedural opportunities for the provision of benefits that [the statute] does not afford. As long as the benefits themselves are undiminished, the requirements of [the statute] are met.
Id. at 552-58.
The words of subdivision 4 of the Minnesota statute are even clearer than the Florida statute relied on in Gassner. The Minnesota statute includes language similar to the Florida statute but adds another sentence that provides a specific exemption for the procedural aspects of the ADR rules. It states:
For purposes of this section, the procedural rights and dispute resolution agreements under subdivision 1, clauses (a) to (g), are not agreements which-diminish an employee’s entitlement to benefits.
Minn.Stat. § 176.1812, subd 4.
IV. Right to Counsel
Because I conclude that Kline has waived the right to review by this court of the decisions of the WCCA, I would not reach Kline’s claim that he was denied due process because his counsel was not allowed to be present at the facilitation.
Further, if I were' to review that question, I would conclude that a worker’s compensation claimant does not have a due process right to legal representation at the facilitation stage of an ADR process where the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement preclude counsel at that stage. Parties may waive their right to counsel in virtually all legal settings, including those having more serious ramifications than a workers’ compensation claim. By virtue of the adoption of the rules of the Fund in the collective bargaining agreement, and the provision in the rules that counsel cannot be present at the facilitation, Kline has waived the right to have counsel present at that stage.
Finally, as noted earlier, because Kline’s waiver is part of a private agreement that created the ADR systems, there is no “state action” and due process issues cannot arise.
BLATZ, Chief Justice, (dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Justice Hanson.

. Kline does not argue that he is not bound by the collective bargaining agreement of his union. See Tynan v. KSTP, Inc., 247 Minn. 168, 77 N.W.2d 200, 205 (Minn.1956).

. This reform effort is well summarized in Linda J. Starr, Note, Injured on the Job: Using Alternative Dispute Resolution to Improve Workers’ Compensation in Minnesota, 18 Hamline J. Publ. L & Pol'y 487 (1997) (cited hereafter as ''Starr”).

. In Minnesota, for example, an employer may require an injured worker to go through several formal stages, including negotiations with a compensation insurance adjuster, settlement conferences at the department of workers' compensation, pretrial or settlement conference before a compensation judge, a hearing before a compensation judge, an appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) and review by the Minnesota Supreme Court. See Minn.Stat. §§ 176.305, subd. la; 176.106, subd. 7; 176.341; Minn. Stat. 176.351; 176.421; 176.471 (2002). Each of these stages adds costs and delay without adding benefits.

. Minnesota statutes do not specifically permit ADR based on agreement between individual employees and employers. Presumably, an employee and employer could opt to use ADR to facilitate a settlement, but such a settlement would remain subject to the supervision of the commission under Minn.Stat. § 176.521 (2002).

. Cal. Labor Code §§§ 3201.5, 3201.7, 3201.8 (West 2004); Fla. Stat. § 440.211 (2004); Haw.Rev.Stat. ch. 386 (2004); Ky.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 342.277 (Baldwin 2003); Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. Tit. 39-A, § 110 (West 2003); Md.Code Ann. Lab. & Empl. § 9-104 (2004); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 10C (2004); Minn.Stat. § 176.1812 (2004); N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law §§ 20, 25 (McKinney 2004); Or.Rev.Stat. §§ 656.170, 656.174 (2001); Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 77, § 1000.6 (Wesl.2004).

. As noted in Gilmer, the Court has also approved the use of arbitration to enforce other statutory claims, such as antitrust, securities and RICO. Gilmer, 500 U.S. at 31, 111 S.Ct. 1647. Similarly, the Court has held that private enforcement of state statutory claims is not state action. See, e.g., Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 165, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978).

. The word "either” is appropriately "used before the first of two (or occasionally more) alternatives that are being specified.” New Oxford American Dictionary 546 (2001).