104 Neb. 211 | Neb. | 1920
Lead Opinion
The trial court, in a workmen’s compensation case, overruled plaintiff’s motion to vacate the judgment previously entered, approving a lump sum settlement had between the parties. Plaintiff ■ appeals.
The motion asked vacation on the ground that the pleading or application for approval of the settlement did not state a cause which gave the court jurisdiction under the law to enter judgment. The pleading, after reciting facts which brought the parties under the compensation act, and which showed the nature and extent of the injury, for which compensation, under the law, is fixed at $12 a week, showed that the parties had agreed upon a lump sum payment in the sum of $500, and asked that the court approve the settlement. The point urged' is that the application did not show that the settlement, although agreed to, was a commutation. Neither the application nor the court’s order showed any agreement or finding as to the number of weekly payments to which
The statute provides: “The interested parties shall have the right to settle all matters of compensation between themselves in accordance with the provisions of this article.” Rev. St. 1913, sec. 3677, as amended by section 12, ch. 85, Laws 1917. When the compensation is due for death or permanent disability (as here) it “may be commuted only upon the order or decision of the district court.” Rev. St. 1913, sec. 3681, as amended by section 16, ch. 85, Laws 1917. It further provides that, “where commutation is agreed upon, or ordered by the court, the lump sum to be paid shall be fixed at an amount which will equal the total sum of the probable future payments, capitalized at their present value upon the basis of interest calculated at five per centum per annum with annual rests.”
The compensation recoverable is proportionate to the injury or loss. The law fixes the amount to be paid weekly and the number of weeks for a total loss. If the loss is partial, the amount to be paid is determined by making a corresponding decrease in the number of weeks. In other words, if one-half the use of a foot has been lost, the compensation to be allowed would be for '62y> weeks, instead of 125 weeks, the time named in the law if the loss were total.
It would seem that, when parties attempt to settle, the main point, if any, in dispute must be the extent ot the injury, which determines- the number of future payments. In the case in hand, if loss were total, the payments would be $12 a week for 125 weeks. The settlement was for the lump sum of $500. The question appears to be whether the parties and thé trial judge must, with mathematical precision, first proportion the loss, then compute the' number of weeks, and then find the present worth of the total amount, or whether they will be permitted
Although the use of the word “commute” makes the argument at least plausible, we hardly think the statute intends to impose this necessity upon the parties. Settlements are usually arrived at by compromise. The substance or meaning of a commutation will be. in the minds of the parties. The trial court, in giving or withholding its approval of the agreement, should be satisfied that no advantage has been taken of the employee, either in agreeing upon the extent of the injury or the proper commutation of the compensation to which he is entitled. The court has more to do than to see that the commutation is figured accurately. It has to decide whether the settlement is a fair one and whether it is for the best interests of the employee to receive his compensation in one payment.
The statute describes what the application shall contain. It requires only a concise statement of the terms of the settlement. This, the application in question did contain. The court acquired jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the parties.
We have held that the purpose of the statute is to give a speedy, informal and inexpensive hearing and to avoid, as far as possible, the more technical forms of court procedure. Stoica v. Swift & Co., 100 Neb. 434; Bailey v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 99 Neb. 109.
We are of opinion that the evidence shows that the settlement had in this case and the order entered should not be' disturbed.
Affirmed.
Rehearing
The following opinion on rehearing was filed October 4,1920. Former opinion modified and judgment reversed;
This is a proceeding under the workmen’s compensation act. Plaintiff fell from a ladder June 20, 1918, and broke two bones in his left ankle, while performing the duties of a carpenter in the employ of defendant for $18 a week. The injury resulted in “a permanent partial loss” of the use of a foot within the meaning of the stat
Did the district court err in overruling the motion to vacate the settlement? In approving the agreement, did the trial court require the parties to comply with the statute under which both sought relief or protection?
In entering into an agreement to discharge the employer from all liability for a permanent disability of the employee upon payment of a lump sum in lieu of periodical payments, the parties are not at liberty to make settlements at variance with statutory terms; and ascertainment of the amounts of compensation payable periodically under the law is a prerequisite to a contract for commutation. Laws 1917, ch. 85, sec. 16; amending section 3681, Rev. St. 1913.
In the approval of a commutation of an employee’s compensation from periodical payments to a payment in gross, the public has an interest which it is the duty of
The workmen’s compensation act does not contemplate the payment of large sums of money to improvident employees or dependents who may lose it and become a charge on the public. To prevent injured employees and dependents from squandering or losing their means of support, the legislature, on grounds of public policy, has adopted the system of requiring employers to pay compensation for injuries in small periodical payments at short intervals for a definite period.
Commutation or payment in a lump sum by approved agreement of the parties is a departure from the general rule and should only be sanctioned upon compliance with the statutory terms relating to the exception. /
Facts disclosing compliance with the provisions governing the exception are subjects of inquiry on the hearing of every application for the approval of a lump sum in lieu of periodical payments. In the present case some of the facts essential to a compliance with the exception were not before the trial court when the settlement was approved. Evidence from which the nature and the extent of the injury could be determined was wanting. The settlement had not been presented to or approved by the compensation commissioner. 'Without accurate knowledge of the nature and the extent of the injury the compensation to which plaintiff is entitled is unknown, and compensation based on the injury is a material factor in the approval of an agreement for commutation. ‘ ‘ The probable future payments, capitalized at their present value upon the basis of interest calculated at five per centum per annum with 'annual rests, ’ ’ is the statutory method of determining the lump sum payable in lieu of periodical payments. Laws 1917, ch. 85, sec. 16. There
“The amounts of compensation payable periodically under the law, by agreement of the parties with the approval of the compensation commissioner* may be commuted to one or more lump sum payments, except compensation due for death and permanent disability, which may be commuted only upon the order or decision of the district court; provided, that where commutation is agreed upon, or ordered by the court, the lump sum to be paid shall be fixed at an amount which will equal the total sum of the probable future payments, capitalized at their present value upon the basis of interest calculated at five per centum per annum with annual rests.” Laws 1917, ch. 85, sec. 16.
“All disputed claims for compensation or for benefits under this article must be submitted to the compensation commissioner.” Laws 1917, ch. 85, sec. 13.
“Reports of accidents and settlements shall be made in form and manner as prescribed and directed by the compensation commissioner.” Laws 1917, ch. 85, sec. 20.
The compensation commissioner is charged with the duty of executing all provisions of the act. Laws 1917, ch. 85, sec. 27. E-very .claim for benefits may be presented to the compensation commissioner for adjudication and award. Laws 1917, ch. 85, sec. 29. A copy of all settlements must be filed with the compensation commissioner. Laws 1917, ch. 85, sec. 12.
While the authority to approve a lump sum for a permanent disability has been committed to the district court, it seems to have been the intention of the legisla-, ture, as disclosed by the entire act, to require the parties to submit their agreement to the compensation commissioner before asking the district court to approve the commutation.
Reversed and remanded.
