Utah Court of Appeals
Can employers forfeit their right to third-party settlement offsets in workers' compensation cases? Sysco v. Labor Commission Explained
Summary
Paul Roberts was awarded permanent total disability benefits after four work-related automobile accidents. Sysco Corporation sought to offset third-party settlement proceeds Roberts had recovered against the PTD benefits, but failed to raise the offset issue during the benefits adjudication. The Labor Commission determined Sysco had forfeited its right to seek offsets.
Analysis
In Sysco v. Labor Commission, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether an employer can forfeit its right to seek third-party settlement offsets against workers’ compensation benefits by failing to raise the issue during the underlying benefits adjudication.
Background and Facts
Paul Roberts sustained injuries in four work-related automobile accidents between 2005 and 2014 while employed by Sysco Corporation. Roberts successfully recovered damages from third parties in civil lawsuits related to three of the accidents and was later awarded permanent total disability benefits by the Labor Commission. During discovery on the PTD claim, Sysco sought information about Roberts’s third-party settlements and filed motions to compel, which the administrative law judge denied. Crucially, Sysco never raised the issue of offsets during the benefits adjudication itself, only filing a motion to compel regarding settlement information after the Commission awarded benefits.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether the Labor Commission had jurisdiction to determine that Sysco forfeited its right to seek offsets, and (2) whether Sysco actually forfeited that right by failing to raise the offset issue during the benefits adjudication.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court distinguished between waiver and forfeiture, explaining that forfeiture is the failure to make timely assertion of a right, while waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right. The court held that parties have an obligation to raise all issues that could have been presented before the Commission, and those not raised are forfeited. Since Roberts had entered into settlements long before filing his PTD claim, Sysco had the opportunity to raise offset issues during the benefits adjudication but failed to do so. The court rejected Sysco’s argument that its discovery attempts preserved the offset issue.
Practice Implications
This decision underscores the importance of raising all potential offset claims during the initial workers’ compensation proceedings. Employers cannot rely solely on discovery efforts to preserve their rights to third-party settlement offsets. The ruling clarifies that the Labor Commission has fact-finding authority and can adjudicate issues in the first instance, unlike appellate courts. Practitioners should ensure that offset issues are explicitly raised and litigated during the benefits adjudication rather than attempting to pursue them post-award.
Case Details
Case Name
Sysco v. Labor Commission
Citation
2021 UT App 127
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20200634-CA
Date Decided
November 18, 2021
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
An employer forfeits its right to seek third-party settlement offsets against workers’ compensation benefits when it fails to raise the offset issue during the underlying benefits adjudication.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law, including whether an agency has jurisdiction and whether a party properly raises an issue for adjudication
Practice Tip
Assert all third-party settlement offset claims during the initial workers’ compensation benefits proceeding rather than waiting until after the award is issued.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.