Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 72-404 (2026)
settlement agreements — lump sum payments.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
settlement agreements — lump sum payments.
(1) Pursuant to the provisions of this section, parties may compromise and settle claims by way of agreements for lump sum payments, future payments, accrued income benefits, future income benefits, medical cost reimbursements, and other benefits payable under Idaho’s worker’s compensation laws.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, commission approval is not required for parties to enter into enforceable compromise or settlement agreements. However, either party may request a review and approval of a proposed compromise or settlement agreement by the commission.
(3) In any case where one (1) or both parties are not represented by an attorney or in any case where a party is a minor child or legally incompetent person, the commission shall review compromise or settlement agreements. The commission shall approve such an agreement if it determines that approval is in the best interests of the parties. If the commission declines to approve a compromise or settlement agreement, it shall issue a written decision, including factual findings, conclusions of law, and an order declining to approve the agreement. Such decision and order shall be immediately appealable to the Idaho supreme court on grounds of abuse of discretion.
(4) If the commission requires a hearing as part of the settlement review and approval process pursuant to subsection (3) of this section, the commission shall, prior to such hearing, provide each party with written notice of the commission’s specific issues to be addressed at the settlement review hearing.
(5) All compromise and settlement agreements shall be filed with the commission for recordkeeping purposes and for purposes of assessment under section 72-327, Idaho Code. A settlement agreement shall be effective on the date it is filed with the commission and shall for all purposes constitute an adjudication of the claims resolved in the settlement agreement. All agreements filed with the commission pursuant to this section shall include, at a minimum, a detailed ledger of all benefits paid or disputed and all terms agreed upon by the parties. A copy of the settlement agreement executed by the parties shall be filed with the commission. When the worker is represented by an attorney, the worker’s attorney shall file an attorney charging lien with the commission. The filing of an attorney charging lien shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of section 72-803, Idaho Code, with respect to approval for claims of attorney’s fees, provided that the fees assessed comply with the requirements of Idaho Code and the rules of the commission.
(6) The commission shall, within seven (7) days after the filing of a settlement agreement, issue a notice of dismissal with prejudice, excepting future claims that may include medical or other benefits as agreed upon by the parties.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2023 · leading case: Owsley v. Idaho Indus. Com'n, 106 P.3d 455 (Idaho 2005).
Owsley v. Idaho Indus. Com'n, 106 P.3d 455 (Idaho 2005). “I.C. § 72-404. All three settlement agreements were denied.”
Williams v. Blue Cross of Idaho, 260 P.3d 1186 (Idaho 2011). “Pursuant to I.C. § 72-404, the Commission has the responsibility to approve lump sum settlement agreements and, *519 in doing so, must determine that the settlement is in the best interest of the parties.”
Woodvine v. Triangle Dairy, Inc., 682 P.2d 1263 (Idaho 1984). “"(3) The commission, on its own motion at any time within five (5) years of the date of the accident causing the injury or date of first manifestation of an occupational disease, may review a case in order to correct a manifest injustice.”
Barnett v. Eagle Helicopters, Inc., 848 P.2d 419 (Idaho 1993). “If "liability" meant "paid," provisions of the workers' compensation act such as I.C. § 72-404 would be meaningless. I.C. § 72-404 states: Whenever the commission determines that it is for the best interest of all parties, the liability of the employer for compensation may, on…”
Cook v. Cook, 637 P.2d 799 (Idaho 1981). “In the instant case, the husband's employer, as required by statute, obtained a policy of insurance covering the husband-employee against accidental injury incurred during the course of employment. The husband was so injured and received an award.”
Kindred v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 756 P.2d 401 (Idaho 1988). “(4) This section shall not apply to a commutation of payments under section 72-404. (Emphasis added). [2] 72-450.”
Jarvis v. Rexburg Nursing Ctr., 38 P.3d 617 (Idaho 2001). “Did the Industrial Commission err in failing to liquidate Claimant’s future benefits? Finally, Jarvis argues that the Industrial Commission erred in failing to exercise its authority under Idaho Code § 72-404 to calculate a lump sum payment for all future benefits she is…”
Trudy Deon v. H & J, Inc., 339 P.3d 550 (Idaho 2014). “We take this opportunity to remind the Commission of our warning that ISIF settlement agreements should not be "rubber-stamped" as a matter of routine but, rather, must be substantively considered as required by Idaho Code section 72-404 and the applicable case law.”
Fowler v. City of Rexburg, 773 P.2d 269 (Idaho 1989). “"(2) The commission on such review may make an award ending, diminishing or increasing the compensation previously agreed upon or awarded, subject to the maximum and minimum provided in this law, and shall make its findings of fact, rulings of law and order or award, file the…”
Clark v. Truss, 128 P.3d 941 (Idaho 2006). “The Industrial Commission (Commission) approved that agreement under Idaho Code § 72-404 . In 1996 Claimant suffered a ruptured right biceps tendon.”
Emery v. J.R. Simplot Co., 111 P.3d 92 (Idaho 2005). “I.C. §§ 72-404, 72-711 (1999). This does not mean that a lump sum settlement is the only way to permanently settle workers’ compensation claims.”
Brock v. City of Boise, 516 P.2d 189 (Idaho 1973). “I.C. § 72-404 (effective January 1, 1972); I.”
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.