MARY A HANSON, Applicant

LAND O LAKES INC, Employer

An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Worker's Compensation Division of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.

The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the ALJ, and it adopts the findings and order in that decision as its own.

The findings and order of the administrative law judge are affirmed.

Dated and mailed August 30, 2001
hansoma . wsd : 175 : 8  ND 10.5 

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

The applicant asserts in her petition for commission review that the administrative law judge erred in determining that the applicant has failed to meet her burden of proof to set aside the compromise agreement proved by the department's order of February 14, 2000. The applicant has included additional information not entered into evidence at the hearing with her petition for commission review, as well as many personal notes and observations on the transcripts. However, the commissions decision is based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, and the commission may not take into account other material not entered into evidence at the hearing. There has been no reason put forth or found to allow the taking of additional evidence in this matter.

A compromise agreement may only be set aside on the basis of gross inequity, fraud or duress, newly discovered evidence or mutual mistake. The applicant testified that she was not given all the facts of the case prior to her settlement, and was not told that there is a 12 year statute in Wisconsin, and was led to believe it was not operative in Wisconsin. However, the applicant's attorney, Mr. Erspamer, testified that he had informed the applicant about the 12 year law holding open cases, and that in theory medical expenses remain open, but that nevertheless the applicant has to prove that the medical expenses were reasonable and necessary and related to the work-related injury in question. Mr. Erspamer testified that he had met with the applicant on the day prior to the hearing, and it was his impression that the applicant did not want to settle the case, and he was surprised by the fact that the applicant indicated that she wished to settle the case on the date of the hearing.

Mr. Erspamer also testified that he told the applicant that even if she prevailed that the administrative law judge had no power to order prospective payment of medical expenses such as surgery, and that it might be difficult to prove the medical necessity of treatment in the future.

Mr. Erspamer testified that although the applicant appeared emotional, he believed she was fully aware of the merits of her case and had freely decided to settle the matter. A review of the transcript on the date of the compromise was approved, indicates that the applicant agreed that she had a chance to talk over with her attorney the terms of the compromise agreement, and she understood the option of preceding with the hearing wherein she might have the possibility of winning or losing. The applicant was asked whether she understood that by accepting the compromise agreement she would not be able to make any claims against the employer on that date or in the future, for any claims arising out of any low back injuries she suffered while working for the employer, and the applicant indicated in the affirmative. Although the transcript indicates that the applicant was emotional about the issue at the time of the hearing, the administrative law judge gave the applicant a brief moment to collect herself, and the applicant responded that she understood that for all practical purposes the acceptance of the compromise agreement meant that her case was over.

The commission does not find that the applicant agreed to the settlement under duress or mutual mistake of fact. The applicant admitted in her testimony that she was aware that it was likely that she would need surgery for her back, prior to agreeing to the settlement, and subsequent medical information indicates that in fact the applicant's condition appears to be deteriorating. This information does not constitute newly discovered evidence. The commission agrees with the administrative law judge that the applicant compromised her claim rather than take the risk of going to hearing which she may have won or lost, but nothing in the transcript suggests that the agreement of the parties was other than a good faith effort by the parties to resolve their dispute. The commission credits Mr. Erspamer's testimony that he attempted to explain the terms of the settlement agreement to the applicant, and that as far as could be obtained, she understood the terms and freely agreed to accept them. The transcript indicates that the applicant stated that she was making the decision to accept the agreement on her own volition.

Although the applicant may now be unhappy with the terms of the agreement as it now stands, the commission may not freely overturn such agreements without a showing of fraud, duress, gross inequity or newly discovered evidence. To do so would undercut the parties' reliance and confidence in voluntary agreement without the need for hearing. Based on Mr. Erspamer's credible testimony, and given the transcript which shows that the applicant agreed that she understood the terms of the compromise agreement prior to the departments order, and given evidence that the applicant was aware of her need for surgery prior to entering into the agreement, and given the lack of any newly discovered evidence or evidence of duress, fraud or mutual mistake and the lack of gross inequity in the agreement, the current commission agrees with the administrative law judge that the order of February 14, 2000, approving the compromise agreement is confirmed and the applicant's petition is hereby dismissed.

cc: Attorney David A. Piehler

Appealed to Circuit COurt.  Affirmed July 25, 2002. 

[ Search Decisions ] - [ WC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]

uploaded 2001/09/05