GALEN T. BLOCK, Employee/Appellant,
v.
EXTERIOR REMODELERS, INC. and RTW GROUP, Employer-Insurer/Respondents.
No. WC18-6214
Minnesota Workers Compensation
Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals
March 19, 2019
VACATION
OF AWARD. Payment made to an employee under a settlement
agreement that is later vacated on the basis of an
unanticipated medical condition is not a mistake of fact as
contemplated by Minn. Stat. § 176.179, and the employer
and insurer are entitled to a 100 percent credit for the
settlement amount paid to the employee under the vacated
settlement against the employee’s current claim for
benefits.
Charles A. Bird, Bird, Jacobsen, & Stevens, PC,
Rochester, Minnesota, for the Appellant.
Patrick W. Ostergren and Shannon A. Nelson, Law Office of
Brian A. Meeker, Bloomington, Minnesota, for the Respondents.
Determined by: Patricia J. Mlun, Chief Judge, David A.
Stofferahn, Judge, Sean M. Quinn, Judge
Compensation Judge: Kathleen Behounek
Affirmed.
OPINION
PATRICIA J. MILUN, Chief Judge.
In
2016, the employee petitioned to vacate a 1992 settlement he
had entered into with his former employer. The 1992
settlement resolved the employee’s claims arising out
of an admitted 1988 work injury in exchange for the sum of
$40,000.00. This court vacated the settlement upon the
employee’s showing of an unanticipated change in
medical condition. Thereafter, the employee filed a claim
petition seeking various benefits. The employer and insurer
did not dispute the employee’s entitlement to benefits;
however, they sought credit for the $40,000.00 paid to the
employee under the vacated settlement. The issue of a credit
was heard by a compensation judge, who found the employer and
insurer to be entitled to a 100 percent credit for the
$40,000.00 settlement amount against the benefits owed to the
employee. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In the
fall of 1988, Galen Block, the employee, suffered an injury
to his low back while working for Exterior Remodeling, Inc.,
the employer. He underwent a left L5-S1 hemilaminectomy.
Thereafter, the parties entered into a partial settlement,
resolving the employee’s claims for wage loss and
permanent partial disability benefits. A few years later, the
employee underwent another laminectomy. He was then under
permanent work restrictions but was able to return to his
former line of work.
The
employee subsequently claimed further...