54 Van Natta 142 (2002). GUY R. IVY, Claimant.

• Case Date: March 20, 2002
• Court: Oregon

Oregon Worker Compensation 2002. 54 Van Natta 142 (2002). GUY R. IVY, Claimant 142In the Matter of the Compensation of GUY R. IVY, ClaimantWCB Case No: C012770ORDER APPROVING CLAIM DISPOSITION AGREEMENTMalagon Moore Et Al, Claimant AttorneysHitt Et Al, Defense AttorneysReviewing Panel: Members Biehl and Bock.On November 21, 2001, the Board received the parties' claim disposition agreement (CDA) in the above-captioned matter. On November 27, 2001, the Board wrote to the parties regarding a provision in the CDA concerning an overpayment, requesting the clarification of the precise consideration for the agreement. On December 6, 2001, the Board received the parties' addendum to the CDA and, in response to a second letter, the Board received another CDA on March 7, 2002. We treat the most recent CDA as a further amendment of the prior CDA. The proposed CDA provides that in consideration of the self-insured employer's release of all claims to an overpayment of $10,512.25, and its additional payment of $5,000, claimant releases all past, present, and future rights to "non- medical service" benefits, for the compensable injury. For the following reasons, we approve the proposed disposition. The CDA provides for total settlement proceeds of $5,000, consisting of a lump sum payment to claimant of $4,000, and an attorney fee of $1,000. In addition, the employer agrees to release all claims to an overpayment of $10,512.25. We have previously held that, where an overpayment apparently has been made pursuant to prior claims processing obligations, that overpayment cannot qualify as "proceeds" of the parties' CDA. See, e.g., Ronald E. Smith, 47 Van Natta 38 (1995); Timothy W. Moore, 44 Van Natta 2060 (1992). Furthermore, a carrier's contractual forbearance of its right to pursue an offset cannot serve as consideration for a claimant's release of rights to workers' compensation benefits. See Ronald E. Smith, 47 Van Natta at 38. Consequently, the employer's "waiver" of the $10,512.25 overpayment in this case does not constitute valid consideration for 54 Van Natta 142 (2002)143the...