02-03968-H-5469. Norwood v. Bracken Construction Company.

• Case Date: November 30, 2005
• Court: Mississippi

Mississippi Worker Compensation 2005. 02-03968-H-5469. Norwood v. Bracken Construction Company QUINON NORWOOD CLAIMANT V. BRACKEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY EMPLOYER AND LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY (In Liquidation, Mississippi Insurance Guaranty Association, Successor in Interest) CARRIER BEFORE THE MISSISSIPPI WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION MWCC NO. 0203968-H-5469 ORDER APPROVING FINAL COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING CLAIM WITH PREJUDICE This cause came on this day for hearing before the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission at its offices in Jackson, Mississippi, on the sworn Petition for Approval of Final Compromise Settlement of Quinon Norwood , Claimant, seeking authority for and approval of a compromise settlement as set out in said Petition. The Employer and Carrier join in the Petition. The Commission finds that Claimant and the Employer/Carrier seek the approval by the Commission of the settlement as proposed to the extent that the settlement falls within the jurisdiction of the Commission but that the parties represent that their agreement might extend to other issues over which the Commission has no jurisdiction and the parties have agreed that the Commission is not being asked to address any of those issues in its deliberations regarding this workers' compensation settlement. The Commission has examined the Petition and the compromise settlementproposed therein; has reviewed the Commission records in this claim; has determined that Claimant is represented by competent legal counsel; and the Commission is of the opinion that the compromise settlement is just, fair and proper, is in the Claimant's best interest, and that the prayer of the Petition should be granted. The Commission finds that it has jurisdiction in this matter and that the case is a proper one for disposition under the provisions of the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Act including the provisions of Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-29 (1972). The Commission further finds that Claimant represents that he, together with the Employer and Carrier, have considered the application of 42 U.S.C. Section 1395(y), the Medicare Secondary Payor statute, and are of the opinion that this settlement is not one that is required to be submitted to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) because Claimant is not drawing Social Security benefits and is neither a current...