King v. Kniznick

• Decision Date: 01 July 1953
• Citation: 98 A.2d 356,98 N.H. 247
• Parties: KING v. KNIZNICK et al.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 356

98 A.2d 356

98 N.H. 247

KING v. KNIZNICK et al.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

July 1, 1953.

John J. Broderick, Maurice A. Broderick, Manchester, for plaintiff.

Devine & Millimet, Joseph A. Millimet, Manchester, for defendant.

KENISON, Chief Justice.

An important question in the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Law, not heretofore decided in this state, is whether a lump sum settlement under section 31 is subject to modification. That section reads as follows: '31. Lump Sum Payments. Lump sum settlements may be permitted at the discretion of the commissioner of labor when it appears to the best interests of all concerned.' Lump sum settlements under this section were first considered in Bolduc v. Marcalus Mfg. Company, 96 N.H. 235, 239, 73 A.2d 115, 118. It was there said: 'These are settlements where both parties are in agreement and the Commissioner in the exercise of his discretion permits them. * * * Consequently neither the Commissioner nor the Superior Court has authority to make lump-sum awards. However, the Commissioner has the authority to permit in his discretion lump-sum settlements.' Although there have been several amendments to the law there have been none which permit the Superior Court to approve lump sum settlements. Since the statute places the allowance of lump sum settlements solely in the discretion of the Labor Commissioner, no significance or validity is attached to the docket marking filed in the Superior Court for the purpose of deciding the petition for modification. Miller v. Schlereth, 151 Neb. 33, 36 N.W.2d 497; Horovitz, Workmen's Compensation, 379. The rights of the plaintiff and the defendant are controlled by the Workmen's Compensation Law and the lump sum settlement agreement that they entered into with the approval of the Labor Commissioner.

In addition to lump sum settlements there are two other methods of determining compensation. Section 34 provides that the parties may agree on the compensation with the approval of the Labor Commissioner 'subject to modification as provided in section 38'. Diamond v. Employers' etc., Company, 97 N.H. 510, 92 A.2d 925. Section 35, as amended by Laws 1949, c. 277, § 1, provides that if the compensation is not fixed by agreement, 'either party may petition for hearing and award in the premises either to the commissioner of labor or to the superior court.' Awards made by the Labor Commissioner or the court are likewise subject to modification under section 38 if application is made 'not later than one year after the date of the last payment fixed by the award * * *.' Zeady v. Arms Textile Mfg. Company, 96 N.H. 328, 76 A.2d 512; Carbonneau v. Hoosier Eng. Company, 96 N.H. 240, 244, 73 A.2d 802. Section 38, as amended by Laws 1949, c. 277, § 4 reads as follows: 'Modification of Awards and Agreements; Effect. Upon application of any party in interest upon the ground of change in the conditions, mistake as to nature or extent of injury or disability, fraud, undue influence or coercion, the commissioner of labor or the superior court, whichever made the original award, may, not later than one year after the date of the last payment fixed by the award, review said award, and upon such review, may make an order ending, diminishing or increasing the compensation previously awarded, subject to the maximum or iminimum provided in this chapter and shall state its conclusions of fact and rulings of law. Such a review shall not affect such award as regards any money already paid. All procedure on such an application shall be the same as herein provided for original hearings.'

It is clear that section 38 allows modification of both agreements and awards under sections 34 or 35 by the Commissioner of Labor or the Superior Court. Cf. 2 Larson, Workmen's Compensation (1952), § 81.00, note 49. It is significant that section 38 does not mention lump sum settlements or lump sum payments and the decision in Boldue v. Marcalus Mfg. Company, 96 N.H. 235, 73 A.2d 115 indicates that the Legislature intended to treat them differently from agreements and awards. Nor is there any provision in our law which prohibits compromises based on disputed compensability such as exist in some jurisdictions. 2 Larson, Workmen's Compensation, § 82.43. If the Legislature did not give the court the power to allow lump sum settlements in the first instance, it is doubtful that it intended to give the court power to increase or decrease them after they had been approved by the Labor Commissioner. Statutes having some similarity to ours allow modification of awards for weekly compensation but '* * * a lump sum settlement, when made without error of law, cannot be set aside by an insurer who thinks it excessive or by an employee who believes it too low'. Paltsios's Case, 329 Mass. 526, 109 N.E.2d 163, 165; see also, 9 N.A.C.C.A. Law Journal, 113. We therefore...