Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.390 (2026)

Compromise settlements, how made

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

287.390. Compromise settlements, how made — validity, effect, settlement with minor dependents — employee entitled to one hundred percent of offer, when — maximum medical improvement, rating from second physician, when. — 1. Parties to claims hereunder may enter into voluntary agreements in settlement thereof, but no agreement by an employee or his or her dependents to waive his or her rights under this chapter shall be valid, nor shall any agreement of settlement or compromise of any dispute or claim for compensation under this chapter be valid until approved by an administrative law judge or the commission, nor shall an administrative law judge or the commission approve any settlement which is not in accordance with the rights of the parties as given in this chapter. No such agreement shall be valid unless made after seven days from the date of the injury or death. An administrative law judge, or the commission, shall approve a settlement agreement as valid and enforceable as long as the settlement is not the result of undue influence or fraud, the employee fully understands his or her rights and benefits, and voluntarily agrees to accept the terms of the agreement.

2. A compromise settlement approved by an administrative law judge or the commission during the employee's lifetime shall extinguish and bar all claims for compensation for the employee's death if the settlement compromises a dispute on any question or issue other than the extent of disability or the rate of compensation.

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 287.190, an employee shall be afforded the option of receiving a compromise settlement as a one-time lump sum payment. A compromise settlement approved by an administrative law judge or the commission shall indicate the manner of payment chosen by the employee.

4. A minor dependent, by parent or conservator, may compromise disputes and may enter into a compromise settlement agreement, and upon approval by an administrative law judge or the commission the settlement agreement shall have the same force and effect as though the minor had been an adult. The payment of compensation by the employer in accordance with the settlement agreement shall discharge the employer from all further obligation.

5. In any claim under this chapter where an offer of settlement is made in writing and filed with the division by the employer, an employee is entitled to one hundred percent of the amount offered, provided such employee is not represented by counsel at the time the offer is tendered. Where such offer of settlement is not accepted and where additional proceedings occur with regard to the employee's claim, the employee is entitled to one hundred percent of the amount initially offered. Legal counsel representing the employee shall receive reasonable fees for services rendered.

6. As used in this chapter, "amount in dispute" means the dollar amount in excess of the dollar amount offered or paid by the employer. An offer of settlement shall not be construed as an admission of liability.

7. (1) In the case of compromise settlements offered after a claimant has reached maximum medical improvement, upon receipt of a permanent disability rating from the employer's physician, a claimant shall have a period of twelve months from such date to acquire a rating from a second physician of his or her own choosing.

(2) Absent a finding of extenuating circumstances by an administrative law judge or the commission, if after twelve months a claimant has not acquired a rating from a second physician, any compromise settlement entered into under this section shall be based upon the initial rating.

(3) A finding of extenuating circumstances by an administrative law judge or the commission shall require more than failure of the claimant to timely obtain a rating from a second physician.

(4) The provisions of this subsection may be waived by the employer with or without stating a cause.

--------

(RSMo 1939 § 3723, A.L. 1959 S.B. 167, A.L. 1965 p. 397, A.L. 1977 S.B. 400, A.L. 1983 S.B. 44 & 45, A.L. 1990 S.B. 751, A.L. 2005 S.B. 1 & 130, A.L. 2017 S.B. 66)

Prior revision: 1929 § 3333

(2011) Section requires Labor and Industrial Relations Commission to approve valid agreements, including a structured settlement agreement on claim for death benefits for employee's widow and children. Roth v. J.J. Brouk & Co. Corp., 356 S.W.3d 786 (Mo.App.E.D.).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 38 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1964–2024 · leading case: Dickemann v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 550 S.W.3d 65 (Mo. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dickemann v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 550 S.W.3d 65 (Mo. 2018). · cites it 14× “The parties requested that the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission ("Commission") approve this agreement, but the Commission declined to do so on the grounds that: (1) the Commission has no authority to approve the agreement as a "settlement" under section 287.390; 1 and…”

Nance v. Maxon Elec., Inc., 395 S.W.3d 527 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 37× “Because the Commission erred in its legal conclusion that it had no authority under section 287.390 to approve the joint settlement agreement, and because the Commission incorrectly found that it had no legal authority to approve the joint settlement agreement under section 287.”

Grubbs v. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund, 298 S.W.3d 907 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “Further, the Commission noted that if the term “claim” only refers to the “Form WC-21 Claim for Compensation,” accepted meanings of other provisions of law are called into question.”

Curry v. Ozarks Elec. Corp., 39 S.W.3d 494 (Mo. 2001). · cites it 9× “18(6), RSMo 1994, after Ozarks and Curry entered into a section 287.390, RSMo 1994, compromise settlement; and (2) whether Cox presented sufficient competent evidence that Ozarks authorized Cox’s services in advance, as required for a direct payment claim under section 287.”

Treasurer of Missouri-custodian v. Cook, 323 S.W.3d 105 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 7× “The court in Grubbs further found that interpreting a “claim” to include disputes resolved informally through settlement agreements is consistent with the use of the word “claim” in section 287.390, RSMo, the statute governing compromise agreements.”

Rector v. City of Springfield, 820 S.W.2d 639 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 8× “* * * * * * "that there is now a dispute between the employer and employee as to nature and extent of disability; that because of said dispute it is agreed by said parties to enter into a compromise to sum settlement under Section 287.390 RSMo., 1969, for the payment of a lump…”

Sheets v. Hill Bros. Distributors, Inc., 379 S.W.2d 514 (Mo. 1964). · cites it 15× “” It was then recited that it was agreed that the parties thereto would enter into a compromise lump sum settlement pursuant to Section 287.390 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., for the additional payment to plaintiff of $1,716.”

Conley v. Treasurer of Missouri, 999 S.W.2d 269 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 8× “On April 15, 1997, employee entered into a stipulation for compromise settlement (settlement) with Lafayette pursuant to section 287.390. The settlement stated that employee and Lafayette agreed to enter into a compromise lump sum settlement in the amount of $6000 based upon an…”

Shockley v. Laclede Elec. Coop., 825 S.W.2d 44 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 9× “On June 8,1987, Shockley, then 38 and represented by counsel other than his present counsel, and the employer and insurer, also represented by counsel, entered into a “Contract of Compromise and Release” pursuant to § 287.390. 1 The agreement stated: The parties were operating…”

Seifner v. Treasurer of the State-Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, 362 S.W.3d 59 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “See § 287.390, RSMo Cum.Supp. 2011. Although the settlement must be approved, “[t]he ALJ has no power to coerce a settlement of a workers’ compensation claim, but only has veto power to refuse to approve the settlement already made if he deems it not in accordance with the…”

Stena Hinkle v. A.B. Dick Co., 435 S.W.3d 685 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 9× “It determined that it could not approve the settlement under section 287.390, RSMo Cum. Supp.2013. Section 287.”

State ex rel. ISP Minerals, Inc., Relator v. The Labor & Indus. Relations Comm'n, 465 S.W.3d 471 (Mo. 2015). · cites it 4× “1992), the claimant settled his workers’ compensation claim pursuant to section 287.390 for a lump sum. Id. at 45 .”

Show all 38 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.390(1) — 1 case

Ley v. St. Louis Cnty., 710 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).

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.