Court Opinion

ID: 9850069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:51:46.513152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:31.343372
License: Public Domain

*723BAKES, Justice,
dissenting in part and concurring specially:
I dissent as to Part I and concur in Part III of the majority opinion. With regard to Part II, I concur with that portion which concludes that the compensation agreement is ambiguous and that the Industrial Commission, on remand, should decide as a question of fact, rather than as a matter of law, whether the parties, by executing the compensation agreement, intended to settle the claimant’s disability award, or only the claimant’s impairment rating. Since that was an issue which was not specifically litigated when this matter was previously before the Industrial Commission, the commission should permit the parties to submit additional evidence, both as to the parties’ intentions in executing the agreement and any other extrinsic evidence bearing upon the issue of what the parties intended when they entered into the compensation agreement.
[[Image here]]
*724[[Image here]]