Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

Banks: A Factual Mistake Allowed Compensation Review, and Remittitur Was Not a Third-Party Compromise

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published September 10, 2026

Banks v. Chicago Grain Trimmers Association concerned a widow's renewed Longshore Act death-benefit claim after an eyewitness connected her husband's fatal fall at home to an injury at work earlier that day.

The first claim used the wrong work-injury theory

The widow first alleged that a January 26 workplace injury caused her husband's later fall and death. The deputy commissioner rejected the claim for lack of proof connecting the asserted injury to the death.

New evidence supported a different factual account

She then found an eyewitness to a workplace injury on January 30, about two hours before the fatal fall at home, and timely sought compensation again. The deputy commissioner awarded benefits after hearings.

Section 22 displaced ordinary claim preclusion

The statute authorized review within the prescribed period because of a mistake in a determination of fact and allowed a new compensation order. The Court rejected the view that factual-mistake review was confined to clerical or disability questions.

Remittitur did not bar the award

In a related third-party action, the widow accepted a judge-ordered reduction of the jury verdict. The Court held that this judicial determination of recoverable damages was not a compromise under section 33(g), and it found substantial evidence supporting causation.

Key takeaways

• Distinguish a factual mistake from a change in condition and calendar the applicable modification period.
• Preserve newly discovered witness evidence and explain why it changes the factual determination.
• Analyze separately any third-party judgment, settlement, remittitur, or approval requirement.
• Confirm the current statutory text and limitations period before seeking modification.