Court Opinion

ID: 9533727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:34:10.414562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:08.786596
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE SULLIVAN delivered the opinion of the court: In their petition for rehearing, defendants express their belief that our opinion might be considered as authority that a double recovery may be obtained by an injured employee or his personal representative. It was defendants’ position that their settlements with the children of the deceased employee here should have been used by plaintiffs as a setoff against any awards those children might receive from the Industrial Commission (the Commission). Initially, it should be noted that the question as to whether the Commission should or could allow a setoff under such circumstances was not an issue in this appeal. In this regard, we were asked only to decide whether defendants waived or were estopped from asserting their section 5 hen, which defendants admit was valid, because they did not request the Commission to set off the amounts of the settlement against any awards to the children. Defendants referred us to no provision in the act requiring or permitting the Commission to consider such setoffs, and we concluded that plaintiffs failure to make a request of the Commission to do so was not a waiver or an estoppel of their right to enforce their lien. In any event, we wish to make clear our belief that the act was intended to prevent a double recovery by an injured employee or his personal representative and that our opinion should not be considered as authority for the allowance of any such double recovery. It is true that three of the children with whom defendant settled also received awards from the Commission. We consider this, however, to be an isolated situation, as we do not believe that such settlements, contrary to the express provision in section 5(b) requiring the consent of the employer, are often made. It seems to us that defendants here are not in a position to complain because the apparent double recovery resulted from their acting contrary to the intent of the Act. Defendants, in their petition for rehearing, have also renewed their argument that the fund subject to the lien should have been only *9,000 instead of the *16,500 we found to be the fund. In our opinion, we set forth the paragraphs of section 5(b) which control the question as to what fund was subject to an employers lien. Defendants argue that those paragraphs intended the fund to include only the sums paid to the children who were entitled to receive Workmen’s Compensation benefits. In the instant case, only three were so entitled, and the total settlement amount paid to them was *9,000, which defendants contend is the fund. However, we interpreted those paragraphs to mean that the fund included all monies paid by a third party tort-feasor because of the injury or death of the employee — which, in the instant case, was the total of *16,500 paid to the children of deceased by reason of his death. Defendants have cited no authority in their briefs or in their petition for rehearing to support their position, and we adhere to our opinion that the language of section 5(b) supports our view as to the amount of the fund. For the reasons stated, the petition for rehearing is denied. Petition for rehearing denied. MEJDA and WILSON, JJ., concur.