Rules of the commission shall govern compromise payments where the prescribed schedules are not applicable and which, in its discretion, may be made in cases where it is not possible to determine the exact extent of disability, as for example in certain injuries to the back or head. The commission shall also have full authority to adjudicate the disposition of death claims. Commutation and lump sum settlement payments shall be governed by rules of the commission, and shall not be made except when determined to be in the best interest of the injured worker or his dependents, the commission having final authority in such questions.
Codes, 1942, §§ 6998-13, 6998-15; Laws, 1948, ch. 354, §§ 9, 9i; Laws, 1950, ch. 412, § 7; Laws, 1958, ch. 454, § 4; Laws, 1968, ch. 559, § 7; reenacted without change, Laws, 1982, ch. 473, § 15; reenacted without change, Laws, 1990, ch. 405, § 15, eff. 7/1/1990.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2022 · leading case:
Bullock v. AIU Ins. Co., 995 So. 2d 717 (Miss. 2008).
Bullock v. AIU Ins. Co., 995 So. 2d 717 (Miss. 2008).
“See Miss.Code Ann. § 71-3-29 (Rev.2000). [3] We note that the carrier and employer voluntarily paid these benefits.”
Bickham v. Dep't of Mental Health, 592 So. 2d 96 (Miss. 1991).
“Spann, the Commission reopened a claim upon which a Section 9(i) settlement had been made, Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-29 (1972), as authorized under Miss.”
Bailey Lumber Co. v. Mason, 401 So. 2d 696 (Miss. 1981).
· cites it 2× “The primary question involved is whether or not the Workmen's Compensation Commission and/or the Circuit Court on appeal has the right to set aside a purported "compromise settlement" under section 9(i) of the Workmen's Compensation Act [ Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-29 (1972)].…”
JR LOGGING v. Halford, 765 So. 2d 580 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).
“NOTES [1] Specifications of this type of settlement are described in Miss.Code Ann. § 71-3-29.”
Everett v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins., 857 F. Supp. 2d 611 (S.D. Miss. 2012).
· cites it 2× “§ 71-3-47 — explicitly found that it had “jurisdiction in this matter,” that the case was “a proper one for disposition under the provisions of the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Act including the provisions of Miss.Code Ann. § 71-3-29 (1972),” and that the settlement was in…”
Sneed v. Verdun, 611 So. 2d 947 (Miss. 1992).
“[1] On July 31, 1989, Sneed filed with the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission (the Commission) a petition for approval of a Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-29 (1972) (originally known as "Section 9(i)" of 1948 session laws of Workers' Compensation Act) settlement with his…”
Taylor v. Reliance Well Serv., Inc., 220 So. 3d 260 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017).
“Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-29 (Rev. 2011). Applying this provision, the Mississippi Supreme Court has held that both compromise and lump sum settlements require Commission approval and “shall not be made ‘except when determined [by the Commission] to be in the best interest of the…”
Carlos Jorge Himeliz v. Hog Slat, Inc. & Ace Am. Ins. Co. (Miss. Ct. App. 2021).
“See Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-29 (“[C]ommutation and lump sum settlement payments shall be governed by rules of the commission, and shall not be made except when determined to be in the best interest of the injured worker or his dependents, the commission having final authority in…”
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.