The Court of Appeals recently held that signing a compromise agreement triggers the exclusive remedy provision where the agreement states that respondents dispute the alleged injury was compensable. Martine v. Williams, ____ WI App 2011, 2010 AP 1426. In Martine, the plaintiff was injured at work after he sprayed a co-employee with water and the co-employee wrestled him to the ground. The plaintiff filed for worker's compensation benefits. The Respondents contended the claim was not compensable alleging that the plaintiff engaged in horseplay when he was hurt. The plaintiff eventually signed a compromise agreement in which the Respondent denied the claim was compensable. The Department approved the agreement and Respondent paid the order.
After the order was paid, the plaintiff brought a personal injury action against the co-employee. The co-employee denied the complaint and affirmatively alleged that the Worker's Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision, Wis. Stat. Sec. 102.03(2), barred the claim. The circuit court agreed with the co-employee and dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court noting that a compromise agreement resolves all claims and defenses to limit the Respondent's liability and guarantee the plaintiff's recovery. As such, a compromise agreement functions as an adjudication of a worker's compensation claim under Chapter 102, which triggers the exclusive remedy provision.
Every Applicant needs to be mindful of the Martine decision when compromising a claim for which potential tort liability could attach to a party that falls under the exclusive remedy provision. If an Applicant has a potential tort claim against a party that falls under the exclusive remedy provision and Respondent's deny the claim is compensable under the Act, the Applicant and his or her worker's compensation counsel should consult with a personal injury specialist to assess the strength of the tort claim before agreeing to compromise the worker's compensation claim.
After the order was paid, the plaintiff brought a personal injury action against the co-employee. The co-employee denied the complaint and affirmatively alleged that the Worker's Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision, Wis. Stat. Sec. 102.03(2), barred the claim. The circuit court agreed with the co-employee and dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court noting that a compromise agreement resolves all claims and defenses to limit the Respondent's liability and guarantee the plaintiff's recovery. As such, a compromise agreement functions as an adjudication of a worker's compensation claim under Chapter 102, which triggers the exclusive remedy provision.
Every Applicant needs to be mindful of the Martine decision when compromising a claim for which potential tort liability could attach to a party that falls under the exclusive remedy provision. If an Applicant has a potential tort claim against a party that falls under the exclusive remedy provision and Respondent's deny the claim is compensable under the Act, the Applicant and his or her worker's compensation counsel should consult with a personal injury specialist to assess the strength of the tort claim before agreeing to compromise the worker's compensation claim.
