What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The Petition for Contribution filed on 10/17/2019 was not timely as to the 02/05/2015 Stipulated Award but was timely as to the 08/07/2019 Compromise and Release Agreement and other benefits.
Favours neutral
This fact determined the limitation on contribution claims to the Compromise and Release Agreement and other non-temporary disability benefits, affecting the timeliness issue outcome.
From the decision · page 6Clearly, the Petition for Contribution, filed on 10/17/2019 (see
Travelers/Prospect Exhibit B) was not filed within one year of this 02/05/2015
Stipulated Award, and thus is untimely as to the compensation awarded and
the species of benefits contained within it.
Dr. Michael Charles' medical opinions were unchallenged and found to be substantial evidence supporting the Compromise and Release Agreement and other losses.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The lack of contrary medical evidence and the acceptance of Dr. Charles' opinions were key to upholding the contribution claim based on the medical record's substantiality.
From the decision · page 11In the absence of any medical evidence challenging the substantiality of
Dr. Charles' opinions, I find them to constitute substantial evidence upon
which to determine the adequacy and appropriateness of the Compromise and
Release as well as other losses sustained.
There was insufficient evidence to determine whether Travelers/Prospect had a legal duty to mitigate liability by intervening in the applicant's personal injury civil action.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This lack of evidence led to denial of the duty to mitigate claim, favoring the defense on that issue.
From the decision · page 11Therefore, there is insufficient evidence upon which to determine whether
or not Travelers/Prospect, under the circumstances, had a legal duty to
mitigate its liability by intervening in this matter.