## Facts

- Margaret Ford, an employee of Cagles, Inc., filed a workers’ compensation claim alleging work-related carpal-tunnel and neck injuries.
- The parties participated in a statutory benefit-review conference conducted by an ombudsman under Ala. Code §§ 25-5-290 to -292.
- On January 20, 1998, the parties executed a written settlement agreement, signed by Ford and her lawyer and by Cagles and its lawyer.
- Under the agreement, Ford would resign, withdraw her neck-injury claim, and settle all claims related to her carpal-tunnel injury in exchange for $11,000.
- Ford later became dissatisfied with her attorney and decided she did not want to be bound by the settlement.
- On March 19, 1998, Cagles moved in the trial court to enforce the settlement.
- On April 8, 1998—more than 60 days after execution—Ford, represented by new counsel, objected and moved to set the settlement aside.

## Issues

1. Whether an ombudsman-mediated workers’ compensation settlement from a benefit-review conference is enforceable when the trial court did not make a § 25-5-83 finding that the lump-sum compromise was in the employee’s best interest or at least equal to statutory benefits.
2. Whether an employee’s attempt to set aside such a settlement more than 60 days after execution renders the agreement binding and enforceable.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed enforcement of the settlement.
- The Court held that, on these facts, the settlement agreement reached at the benefit-review conference was binding and enforceable.
- The absence of an express § 25-5-83 best-interest finding did not defeat enforceability where Ford did not move to set the agreement aside until more than 60 days after it was made.
- The Court found no basis in the record to invalidate the agreement on grounds such as fraud or coercion.

## Legal Principles

- A written workers’ compensation settlement reached and signed at an ombudsman-conducted benefit-review conference under Ala. Code §§ 25-5-290 to -292 may be enforced as a binding agreement.
- Although § 25-5-83 requires a best-interest determination when a court approves a lump-sum compromise for less than statutory benefits, failure to obtain an express § 25-5-83 finding does not automatically nullify an ombudsman-conference settlement when the employee does not timely seek rescission.
- An employee’s delay beyond the relevant 60-day period to challenge a benefit-review settlement can bar later attempts to avoid the agreement based on the lack of a § 25-5-83 finding.

## Conclusion

The court enforced an ombudsman-mediated workers’ compensation settlement because the employee waited more than 60 days to seek rescission, and the lack of an explicit § 25-5-83 best-interest finding did not, by itself, render the agreement unenforceable on these facts.


Ex parte Ford, 782 So. 2d 185 (Ala. 2000)