No. 09164386 (2000). EMPLOYEE: Louis Bertocchi (deceased).

• Case Date: February 16, 2000
• Court: Massachusetts

Massachusetts Workers Compensation 2000. No. 09164386 (2000). EMPLOYEE: Louis Bertocchi (deceased) COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS EMPLOYEE: Louis Bertocchi (deceased) EMPLOYER: Nibur Carpet Company, Inc. INSURER: Travelers Life and CasualtyBOARD NO. 09164386REVIEWING BOARD DECISION (Judges Maze-Rothstein, Levine and Carroll)APPEARANCES Joseph M. Burke, Esq., for the employee Leonard Y. Nason, Esq., for the insurer Dorothy L. Gruenberg, Esq., for the insurer on brief MAZE-ROTHSTEIN, J. Louis Bertocchi died approximately three weeks before his scheduled lump sum settlement conference. See G.L. c. 152, § 48. We have the appeal of the employee's executor from a decision after remand by the Appeals Court for a determination of whether the parties had an enforceable written lump sum agreement despite the employee's demise. The administrative judge concluded that there was no written agreement statutorily sufficient to render the parties' oral settlement agreement enforceable. We affirm the decision. The facts of this case on remand were stipulated to or were otherwise undisputed in all material respects. The stipulation provided, in pertinent part, that on July 24, 1989 the insurer offered $105,000.00 to settle the employee's accepted claim for a December 17, 1986 industrial injury. The employee accepted the offer of settlement on the same day. As was statutorily required at the time, 1 the employee's counsel scheduled a lump sum counseling session for August 29, 1989 and a lump sum conference for September 8, 1989. On August 10, 1989, before either event, the employee died of a massive coronary, unrelated to his work injury. The insurer notified the employee's counsel that it would not honor the proposed lump sum agreement. (Agreed Statement of Facts.) The judge in the claimant's original action to enforce the proposed lump sum agreement denied the claim, which denial the reviewing board summarily affirmed. (Dec. 3, dated May 24, 1993 [hereinafter Dec. I].) The claimant appealed the case to the Appeals Court, where a single justice affirmed the reviewing board, but the full panel reversed and remanded the case. The case was recommitted to a different administrative judge as the prior judge no longer served with the Department. Upon recommittal, that new administrative judge stated...