3-876-696 (1998). BARBARA J. HIGLEY (Final Order).

• Case Date: October 02, 1998
• Court: Colorado

Colorado Workers Compensation 1998. 3-876-696 (1998). BARBARA J. HIGLEY (Final Order) INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICEIN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF BARBARA J. HIGLEY, Claimant, v. THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION, Employer, and AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, Insurer, Respondents.W. C. No. 3-876-696FINAL ORDER The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Wheelock (ALJ) which denied further medical benefits in the form of housekeeping services. We affirm. The claimant suffered an admitted low back injury on August 9, 1987, arising out of her employment for The Southland Corporation. The claimant eventually underwent surgery. Following surgery, the claimant required the services of a home health aide, and the respondents began providing housekeeping services. On December 3, 1991, the claimant executed a Stipulation for Full and Final Settlement of the claim. The settlement provided that, in exchange for a lump sum payment the claimant waived her right to receive any further workers' compensation benefits, except medical benefits. The ALJ approved the settlement on January 2, 1992. Thereafter, the claimant ceased the need for the services of a home health aide. However, the respondents continued to provide housekeeping services. In September 1993, the respondent-insurer notified the claimant that they contested liability for further housekeeping services. The claimant objected and applied for a hearing. The ALJ found that the terms of the settlement were clear and unambiguous, and therefore, she determined that parol evidence, in the form of testimony from the claimant and the claimant's former attorney, was inadmissible to alter the express terms of the settlement. Further, the ALJ determined that future housekeeping services are not reasonable and necessary under the rule announced in Country Squire Kennels v. Tarshis, 899 P.2d 362 (Colo. App. 1995). Therefore, the ALJ relieved the respondents of the duty to pay for further housekeeping expenses. I. On review, the claimant first contends that the ALJ erroneously allowed the respondents to contest the "reasonableness and necessity" of further housekeeping services. The claimant contends that the settlement expressly contemplated the respondents' liability for ongoing housekeeping services, and that the respondents did not dispute the reasonableness of those services at the time of the settlement. Therefore, the claimant argues that the respondents are precluded from litigating the issue. We disagree. A settlement agreement is a contract, and its interpretation is a question of law. Cary v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 867 P. 2d 117 (Colo. App. 1993). If the language used in the agreement is plain, clear and no absurdity is involved, the agreement must be enforced as written. Three G. Corp. v. Daddis, 714 P.2d 1333 (Colo. App. 1986). Parol evidence is only admissible if the agreement is so ambiguous that the parties' intent is unclear. Cheyenne Mountain School Dist. #12 v. Thompson, 861 P.2d 711 (Colo. 1993). The mere fact that the parties purport to interpret the agreement differently does not, in itself, create an...