Court Opinion

ID: 9692467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:54:54.720736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:34.669345
License: Public Domain

SCOTT, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority on the issue of liability, and with the modifications to the Opinion to the extent it recognizes the trial court’s right to make the initial “credit decision.” I disagree and dissent however, on the Appellees’ right to any offset of the Workers’ Compensation settlement amounts. I also join Chief Justice Lam-berts’ dissent.
In dissenting, I would ask how would an assignment of an employer/insurer’s “sub-rogation rights” to the Appellant make any difference in this instance (as suggested), since the logic of the majority opinion gives pre-eminence to the language of KRS 342.700(1), which states “[b]ut, he shall not collect from both,” and then allows the defendant/obligor to “offset” the items subject to subrogation — since they weren’t claimed by the subrogor (pursuant to the compensation settlement). This logic totally ignores the very next part of KRS 342.700(1), which gives the right to prevent any “double recovery’’ to the specific entities named therein who “[p]aid the compensation, or having become liable therefore, may recover it.” Under no stretch of the imagination is the Appellee one of the named entities. Moreover, there was a settlement agreement in this case, between the Appellant and the employer (through its compensation carrier), which clearly envisioned that the Appellant would get the benefits of the subrogation items, even though no specific written assignment was prepared or executed.
The civil courts and administrative tribunals of this Commonwealth depend on “settlements” as much to manage and alleviate their dockets as do our criminal courts on “plea bargains.” Undue interference with these mechanisms depletes our resources and ultimately redounds to the detriment of our citizens. The settlement between the Appellant and the employer/insurer met the settlement goals set by each and was acceptable to the Board; that is until this “stumbling block.”
As pointed out by Appellant’s counsel at oral arguments — had the majority opinion been law at the time — there would have been no settlement to start with! This is the wrong way to go to get to the right place.
I just dissent.
LAMBERT, C.J., and WINTERSHEIMER, J. joins this opinion.