61

63

62

law. No award can be made for services rendered by a relative of the deceased workman in connection with his funeral, where it does not appear that any money was expended by him. The present New Jersey Act provides for burial expenses in all cases, but before the amendment of 1914, these expenses were not allowable in that state unless there were no dependents. Where the applicant has not personally incurred the burial expenses for the burial of the deceased employé, and his award as a dependent is small, and the undertaker has already received more than the reasonable burial expense fixed by the California Act, none of a large balance due.will be recognized as a lien on the award. The provisions of this Act as to liens for burial expenses do not allow a lien or an order for the direct payment to the undertaker of cost of a

bill

01 Konkel v. Ford Motor Co., Op. Mich. Indus. Acc. Bd., Bul. No. 3, p. 29. A workman was killed while at work and left no dependents. In accordance with section 8, pt. 2, of the Compensation Act, his employer was liable for the funeral expenses, not exceeding $200. He made a contract with an undertaker, the applicant, to furnish and conduct the funeral for $75, and further agreed to pay $15 for the cemetery lot. Applicant presented a for $104, stating that the extra $14 was for three carriages furnished for friends of the deceased who attended the funeral. The employer refused to pay the extra $14, claiming that it was an overcharge, and that the agree ment excluded carriages. The Board held that the right to the custody and burial of the dead belonged to the family, next of kin, near relatives, and friends of the deceased, and that the Compensation Act does not assume to take away or interfere with this important right. Id.

62 Tirre v. Bush Terminal Co., 172 App. Div. 386, 158 N. Y. Supp. 8S3.

63 Prior to the amendment of 1914 to the Workmen's Compensation Act, funeral expenses were not recoverable, when there are dependents to whom compensation has been awarded. (P. L. 1914, p. 499) Hammill v. Pennsyl vania R. R. Co., 87 N. J. Law, 3SS, 94 Atl. 313; Taylor v. Seabrook, 87 N. J. Law, 407, 94 Atl. 399. P. L. 1911, p. 134, as amended by P. L. 1913, p. 302, § 2, pars. 11, 12, 14a, did not obligate the employer to pay burial expenses, where there were dependents to whom compensation had been awarded. tral R. Co. of N. J. v. Kellett, 86 N. J. Law, 84, 90 Atl. 1005.

Cen

64 Heffernan v. Morse Detective & Patrol Service Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec.

burial lot and transportation of the remains in an amount exceeding $100, unless the person entitled to the death benefit so requests.65 Where there are no surviving dependents, an award for burial expenses may be made in Connecticut."6

65 (Wk. Comp. Act, § 15 [c]) Sigman v. Columbia Oil Producing Co., 3 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 2.

66 Pelham v. Burstein, 1 Conn. Comp. Dec. 49.

210-215.

Article IV.-Notice and claim.

216-222. Article V.-Evidence.

223-236. Article VI.-Proceedings before special tribunal.

237-250. Article VII.-Proceedings in court.

237-238.

239-245.

246-250.

251-252.

Division I.-Original proceedings.

Division II.-Review of decision of special tribunal.
Division III.-Review by higher court.

Article VIII.-Costs and attorney's fees.

Section

ARTICLE I

SETTLEMENT BY AGREEMENT

202. Amicable settlements.

§ 202. Amicable settlements

When amicable agreements in settlement of injuries are made under statutory authority, the terms of the statute must be complied with. In some states it is essential that such agreements be

1 The statute recognizes and provides for agreements in settlement of injuries between the association and the employé, if entered into in accordance with the terms of the Act. (St. 1911, c. 751, pt. 3, § 15; part 3, § 4, as amended by St. 1912, c. 571, § 9; and pt. 5, §§ 2, 3) Pigeon's Case, 216 Mass. 51, 56, 102 N. E. 932, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 737; Cripp's Case, 216 Mass. 586, 588, 104 N. E. 565, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 828; Barry v. Bay State St. Ry. Co., 222 Mass. 366, 110 N. E. 1031.

In Miller v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 1 Conn. Comp. Dec. 349, where the injured workman had signed a release in consideration of $400, relinquishing all claims against the respondent, but such amount was not in accord with the Compensation Act, an award was made for the proper amount, deducting therefrom the $400 already paid to the claimant; the Commission hold

presented to a court or commission and approved before they become valid and binding. Reasonable settlements, made in good.

ing that the Compensation Act was part of the contract of employment, and that any settlement made must be strictly in accordance with the Act (Part B, § 2, Wk. Comp. Act).

In Haberski v. Peck, Stowe & Wilcox Co., 1 Conn. Comp. Dec. 278, it was held that a Commissioner may reopen a claim settled by voluntary agreement, where it appears that such agreement does not conform to the Act. In this case it was held sufficient under the Act, and further compensation was denied.

2 Where an insurance carrier makes a cash settlement with an injured employé, in satisfaction of all claim as indemnity for permanent partial disability, such agreement is voidable, unless made with the approval of the California Commission, and will be disregarded when in opposition to the provisions of the Compensation Act. Fontes v. Scott's Express Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 829. The injured employé, in spite of any unapproved agreement, can at any time claim and have his full rights determined by the Commission. An unapproved settlement will expose the employer or insurance carrier to the risk of again paying compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Compensation Act. Id. The execution of a release in full settlement of liability for compensation by an injured employé, in consideration of the payment of a sum of money, is not binding in the absence of approval thereof by the Commission. If there is no such approval, an application may be subsequently filed, and the total amount which may be due to the applicant under the law will be awarded, deducting therefrom any payments previously made. Barozzi v. Bertin & Lepori Co., 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 484.

Under section 23 of the Illinois Act, an employé cannot waive any compensation he may be entitled to, without the approval of the Board. If an employé under the Act has sustained an injury, and has not been paid all the compensation he is entitled to, any settlement made by him, or release executed, without the approval of the Board, is not binding. Cass v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., Bulletin No. 1, Ill., p. 99; Fitt v. Central Illinois Public Service Co., Bulletin No. 1, Ill., p. 129. Such release acts only as a receipt, and the amount paid should be deducted from the total amount payable. Fitt v. Central Illinois Public Service Co., Bulletin No. 1, Ill., p. 129. Section 18 of the Act, which provides, “All questions arising under this Act, if not settled by agreement of the parties interested therein, shall, except as otherwise provided, be determined by the Industrial Board," is qualified by section 23, which prohibits waiver of any provisions of the Act, except with the approval of the Board. McClennan v. Allith Prouty Co., Bulletin No. 1, Ill., p. 116. No settlement wherein any amount of compensation is waived, will be final without such approval. Id.

Inasmuch as the settlement made with the applicant was made without ref

faith and not in violation of the statute, will ordinarily be upheld,3 but a settlement which exposes the employé to loss or hardship and is not in the public interest will not be approved.*

erence to the Workmen's Compensation Act, such settlement would not become binding until approved by the Industrial Accident Board; but the amount will be treated as equitably applying upon the compensation to which she was entitled under the Act. Marshall v. City of Detroit, Mich. Wk. Comp. Cases (1916), 57.

In State ex rel. Duluth Diamond Drilling Co. v. District Court of St. Louis County, 129 Minn. 423, 152 N. W. 838, the Supreme Court said: "The statute contemplates that the court shall supervise and control all matters and proceedings under the Act. In case the parties effect an amicable settlement, such settlement must be presented to the court, and be approved by him as in accordance with the Act, before it becomes valid and binding."

Where an employer paid a workman's attorney $25 as a compromise adjustment of his claim, $15 of which was for medical services, such agreement did not release the employer under the Wisconsin Act for two reasons: First, that, the workman being a minor, the agreement could only operate to reduce the amount of his legal claim, without affecting the right itself; and, second, because it was not filed with the Commission for review as required by the Act. McCutcheon v. Marinette, Tomahawk & Western R. R. Co., Rep. Wis. Indus. Com. 1914–15, p. 13.

3 "There is nothing in the Act to prevent an adult workman, before entering a claim, and before any weekly payment has been made, from coming to an arrangement, by way of compromise with his employer, to accept a sum of money in satisfaction of his claims." Cozens-Hardy, M. R., in Ryan v. Hartly (1912) 5 B. W. C. C. 407, C. A. Where a workman, who had not claimed nor been given compensation for his injury, accepted a sum equal to a week's wages in satisfaction of his claim, he was entitled to do so. Id.

Approved settlements: A settlement whereby the workman received $1,040.07 for the loss of an eye, due to a fragment of steel lodging in it while he was testing a rivet. Southerland v. Cowell Lime & Cement Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 994. A settlement agreement to pay $433.65 for medical expenses and $11.25 weekly for 146 weeks, for a fracture of a workman's leg between the knee and ankle. Pennington v. Geo. W. Pennington Sons, Inc., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 994. A compromise agreement whereby the claimant, a waitress, received $100 for injuries in the thigh due to the accidental discharge of a rifle • The Commission, and not the employer or insurer, is by virtue of the Act made responsible for the execution of its provisions, and unless a settlement is in the public interest and does not expose the employé to loss or hardship, It will be disregarded whenever the public interest requires. Fontes v. Scott's Express Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 829.