Two recent decisions issued by the Office of Administrative Law Judges in December 2025 highlight the continued filings of subsequent claims and the effects (if any) of the settlement of prior claims. Both decisions focus on whether the settlement language clearly identified all known injuries, whether monies were allocated to the identified injuries which were intended to be settled, whether any supporting medical records referenced all known medical conditions and were issued by physicians qualified to diagnose the conditions, the scope of the settlement language, and the intent of the parties.
With claimants continuing to assert subsequent claims for additional delayed onset injuries, Galloway’s Defense Base Act team examines how these recent decisions provide guidance on strategies in defending subsequent claims.
We have previously discussed Defense Base Act decisions arising from subsequent claims filed by claimants and how these decisions have cast doubt over the finality of an approved Section 8(i) settlement application.
Dalibor Dimkovski v. Fluor Conops Ltd. and Ins. Co. of the State of Penn., ALJ No. 2023-LDA-05653 (ALJ Dec. 16, 2025)
In Dimkovski, the ALJ denied Employer/Carrier’s motion for summary decision, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether a prior Section 8(i) settlement barred a later-filed claim for hearing loss and pulmonary injuries.
The employer/carrier argued that a 2022 settlement resolving the claimant’s psychological injury claim, including PTSD and related “sequelae symptoms,” discharged subsequent physical injury claims based on the broad release language and medical records that reflected overlapping symptoms such as shortness of breath, fatigue, palpitations, and tinnitus. They contended these symptoms showed the later claims were “in existence” at the time of settlement, thereby barring the subsequent claim.
The court rejected this argument, concluding that the scope and intent of the settlement was genuinely disputed. Although the agreement referenced physical symptoms, it was expressly directed at psychological injuries and relied primarily on mental health treatment records. The court found it unclear whether the later pulmonary and hearing loss conditions were psychological manifestations or distinct physical injuries not diagnosed, claimed, or intended to be resolved in the settlement. Summary decision was precluded by unresolved factual questions, including whether the later claims existed at the time of settlement, whether they qualified as psychological “sequelae,” whether earlier providers were qualified to diagnose pulmonary or auditory conditions, and whether the settlement reflected any intent to compensate such injuries.
Helen Tusiime v. SOC LLC and Continental Ins. Co., ALJ No. 2023-LDA-04194 (ALJ Dec. 17, 2025)
In Tusiime, the ALJ granted in part and denied in part the employer/carrier’s motion for partial summary decision, holding that a prior Section 8(i) settlement discharged the claimant’s psychological and hearing loss claims, but did not bar a claim for alleged physical injuries, including vision and eye conditions.
The motion was based on a fully executed and OWCP-approved 2022 Section 8(i) settlement arising from the claimant’s earlier DBA claim for psychological harm and hearing loss related to her employment in Iraq. The settlement expressly identified those injuries, summarized the supporting medical evidence, and included broad release language purporting to resolve “any and all alleged conditions both physical and psychological.”
The court granted summary decision as to the psychological and hearing loss claims, which the claimant conceded were covered by the settlement. The judge found no genuine dispute of material fact that those claims were clearly identified, fully resolved, and properly discharged under Section 8(i).
However, the court denied summary decision as to the claimant’s remaining alleged physical injuries, particularly vision and eye conditions. Despite the broad waiver language, the settlement did not expressly reference those injuries or clearly incorporate medical records diagnosing them. The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the settlement language was sufficiently unambiguous, whether relevant medical records were incorporated, whether the parties understood the conditions to be work-related at the time of settlement, and whether such claims were “in existence” when the agreement was approved.
Key Takeaways
The Dimkovski decision reinforces that Section 8(i) settlements discharge liability only for clearly identified claims within the four corners of the agreement. Broad release language and symptom overlap alone may be insufficient to bar later-filed claims involving distinct conditions or uncertain intent. Additionally, the Tusiime decision serves as a reminder that broad settlement language alone may not be enough to bar future claims. To reduce the risk of later disputes, Section 8(i) settlements should clearly identify all known injuries and expressly reference supporting medical records, rather than relying on general waiver language to cover unlisted conditions.
Considering the holdings of these two cases, it may be beneficial to “reframe the question” and approach the issue from a different perspective. Consider motions for summary decision on grounds other than whether a prior approved settlement precludes subsequent claims. Is there another basis that can be asserted which will achieve the same end-result? Alternatively, can the evidence developed in the prior claim be utilized to attack credibility, rebut any presumption of causation, or assist in a showing of prejudice under Section 12?
Disclaimer: This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice, nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Galloway and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.
