20 C.F.R. § 702.241

Definitions and supplementary information

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) As used hereinafter, the term adjudicator shall mean district director or administrative law judge (ALJ).

(b) If a settlement application is submitted to an adjudicator and the case is pending at the Office of Administrative Law Judges, the Benefits Review Board, or any Federal circuit court of appeals, the parties may request that the case be remanded to the adjudicator for consideration of the application. The thirty day period as described in paragraph (f) of this section begins when the remanded case is received by the adjudicator.

(c) If a settlement application is first submitted to an ALJ, the thirty day period mentioned in paragraph (f) of this section does not begin until five days before the date the formal hearing is set. This rule does not preclude the parties from submitting the application at any other time such as (1) after the case is referred for hearing, (2) at the hearing, or (3) after the hearing but before the ALJ issues a decision and order. Where a case is pending before the ALJ but not set for a hearing, the parties may request the case be remanded to the district director for consideration of the settlement.

(d) A settlement agreement between parties represented by counsel, which is deemed approved when not disapproved within thirty days, as described in paragraph (f) of this section, shall be considered to have been filed in the office of the district director on the thirtieth day for purposes of sections 14 and 21 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 914 and 921.

(e) A fee for representation which is included in an agreement that is approved in the manner described in paragraph (d) of this section, shall also be considered approved within the meaning of section 28(e) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 928(e).

(f) The thirty day period for consideration of a settlement agreement shall be calculated from the day after receipt unless the parties are advised otherwise by the adjudicator. (See § 702.243(b)). If the last day of this period is a holiday or occurs during a weekend, the next business day shall be considered the thirtieth day.

(g) An agreement among the parties to settle a claim is limited to the rights of the parties and to claims then in existence; settlement of disability compensation or medical benefits shall not be a settlement of survivor benefits nor shall the settlement affect, in any way, the right of survivors to file a claim for survivor's benefits.

(h) For purposes of this section and § 702.243 the term counsel means any attorney admitted to the bar of any State, territory or the District of Columbia.

[50 FR 399, Jan. 3, 1985, as amended at 51 FR 4284, Feb. 3, 1986]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1979–2004 · leading case: Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 519 U.S. 248 (1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 519 U.S. 248 (1997). · cites it 4× “See also 20 CFR § 702.241 (g) (1996) (no one can enter a settlement agreement with the employer regarding death benefits before the worker dies).”

Edward O'neil, Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Raymond O'Neil v. Bunge Corp. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 365 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 2004). “§ 908 (i) [hereinafter § 908(i)], and its implementing regulations, 20 C.F.R. §§ 702.241 to 702.243. The LHWCA regulations make clear that approval of a settlement is contingent upon the submission of a signed settlement application.”

Oceanic Butler, Inc. v. Nordahl, 842 F.2d 773 (5th Cir. 1988). · cites it 9× “LHWCA, § 9; 20 C.F.R. § 702.241 ; 20 B.R.B.S. 18, 22 note 3; 1A E.”

Ingalls Shipbuilding Div., Litton Sys., Inc. v. John H. White & Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, U. S. Dep't of Labor, 681 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1982). “20 C.F.R. § 702.241 . We, therefore, conclude once again that “[t]he general provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.”

Carey v. Crane Serv. Co., Inc., 457 A.2d 1102 (D.C. 1983). “See also 20 C.F.R. §§ 702.241 , -.242, -.311 to -.”

Barulec v. Skou, 471 F. Supp. 358 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). “Compare 20 C.F.R. § 702.241 (1976) with id. §§ 702.”

Rother v. Interstate & Ocean Transp. Co., 540 F. Supp. 477 (E.D. Pa. 1982). “D-13), produced at trial, shows no further action towards the resolution of this matter; there was no informal conference, formal hearing, settlement agreement, order or award, all of which were provided for in the federal regulations.”

Bonilla v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 859 F.2d 1484 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “is for the best interests of such employee, he shall file a compensation order making necessary findings of fact relative to the character and quality of disability and the effect of same with respect to the employee s wage earning capacity prior to approving such settlement____…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.