(2) The withdrawal of a complaint concerning the termination of pay shall be made in writing and submitted to the Ministry and the employee. The parties shall be deemed to agree with all conclusions contained in a written decision of an arbitrator on a matter that has been submitted to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Section Ten. The Ministry approves any agreement entered into on a mandatory form, unless such an agreement is considered illegal. Any unauthorized agreement will be returned to the party doing so. Unless provided in Article Ten B, a party to an agreement under this Chapter may file a complaint with the Superior Court to annul or amend the agreement for legal or equitable reasons. Any employee who is at least sixty-five years of age, has been inactive for at least two years and is entitled to retirement benefits under the Federal Social Security Act or entitled to benefits from a public or private pension paid in whole or in part by an employer shall not be entitled to benefits under Articles thirty-four or thirty-five, unless the worker can determine that he or she would otherwise have remained active in the labour market as a result of the injury. In practice, in cases where a recovery is made before the Supreme Court against a third party, this is a complicated comparison between the employee and the insurer. The allocation of the amounts received in the context of the third-party action is made for so-called „non-compensable“ amounts. The following are the categories of damages that are not available to the employee in the case of workers` compensation: The loss of the consortium for the spouse and dependent children, Eisner v. Hertz Corp., 381 Mass. 11D(2), if such a case report shows that the insurer has overpaid the employee, the insurer may unilaterally reduce the payments or seek reimbursement in a separate complaint in the same manner as described below. The law further provides that the employee may not rebut the presumption of ine eligibility for the benefit by unconfirmed statements by himself or his family members. However, the case law has made this provision easy to avoid, since it has been interpreted only on the basis of specific testimonies that the employee „could have remained at work“ or words to that effect.

Harman v. Harmon`s Paint & Wallpaper, 8 bars. Comp. of workers Reps. 432 (1994); Tobin Case, 424 Measure. 250 (1997). The section is therefore of limited value, even if its elements are indicated by the insurer. Section 7 of the General Statutes c. 152, which allows insurers to make upfront workers` compensation payments, without prejudice to the insurer`s right to challenge the employee`s claim, does not create an exception to the requirement of c. . .

.