## Facts

- Leo Thomas Kopp, an Illinois resident, worked as a bricklayer for an Illinois employer on a Wisconsin job pursuant to an Illinois employment contract.
- Kopp commuted from Illinois to Wisconsin and suffered a workplace injury to his left eye while working in Wisconsin.
- Kopp filed a workers’ compensation claim in Wisconsin; the employer and insurer objected to Wisconsin’s jurisdiction.
- Kopp also filed a claim in Illinois, identifying a dispute over whether Illinois or Wisconsin had jurisdiction.
- The parties entered an Illinois lump-sum settlement for $2,112 “in full and final settlement” of claims under Illinois law, expressly stating the settlement did not affect any rights under Wisconsin’s compensation law.
- The Illinois Industrial Commission approved the settlement and entered a settlement order; the settlement amount was paid.
- Wisconsin later awarded benefits under Wisconsin law, reduced by the amount paid under the Illinois settlement.
- Wisconsin courts set aside the Wisconsin award, holding the Illinois award was an exclusive bar under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

## Issues

1. Whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause required Wisconsin to treat an approved Illinois workers’ compensation settlement as an exclusive bar to any additional Wisconsin compensation for an injury occurring in Wisconsin.
2. Whether an Illinois settlement order that expressly reserved the employee’s Wisconsin rights could nonetheless preclude a supplemental Wisconsin award.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
- Wisconsin was not constitutionally required to treat the Illinois award as globally exclusive.
- Wisconsin could grant additional compensation under its own statute for the Wisconsin injury, provided it credited the amounts already paid under the Illinois award.
- The Illinois award remained final and conclusive as to rights determined under Illinois law, but did not extinguish potential Wisconsin rights on the terms approved in Illinois.

## Legal Principles

- Full faith and credit requires a forum state to respect the finality and conclusiveness of a sister-state workers’ compensation award as to matters that award finally determines under the rendering state’s law.
- A prior workers’ compensation award in one state does not bar a second state’s supplemental award for the same injury unless the first state’s statute (as construed by that state) and the award clearly provide an exclusive remedy that forecloses recovery elsewhere.
- When the rendering state’s law is not construed as wholly exclusive of other states’ remedies, the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel another state to deny additional benefits for an in-state injury.
- If a settlement term reserving rights under another state’s compensation law is approved and incorporated into the rendering state’s final award, the award’s preclusive effect includes that reservation rather than negating it.
- A second-state award may be conditioned on an offset or credit for compensation already paid under the first-state award to prevent double recovery.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Wisconsin could provide supplemental workers’ compensation benefits for an injury occurring in Wisconsin, offset by amounts paid under an Illinois settlement, because the Illinois award—especially as approved with an express reservation of Wisconsin rights—was not clearly intended to be an exclusive bar under full faith and credit.


Indus. Comm’n of Wis. v. McCartin, 330 U.S. 622 (1947)