determine “the actual amount of tort damages suffered, the elements of damage (including the amounts thereof), the degree of the tortfeasor’s fault, and the amount of the tort award or good faith settlement.” Id. ¶ 13 (emphasis added). This language suggests that, while a comparative negligence issue may not have been specifically before the Court, the same analysis would apply in such a situation. {10} It is essential to an understanding of this case and Gutierrez to recognize that workers’ compensation benefits are paid “without regard to fault....” Id. ¶ 12. Thus, Employer’s and Insurer’s argument that they should not have to pay for Worker’s negligence misses the mark. Gutierrez controls the issue in this case because that issue is duplication of recovery, not fault. See id. ¶ 10 (<HOLDING>). Fault is simply never an issue with ordinary
recognizing that the compensation that an employer pays may exceed an employees recovery from third parties holding that an employer is only allowed to be reimbursed from a tort recovery to the extent that the recovery duplicates the elements of damage covered by compensation benefits holding that recovery is limited to the portion of the medicaid recipients thirdparty recovery representing compensation for past medical expenses holding that the avoidance powers provide for recovery only if the recovery is for the benefit of the estate holding that the application of feca to tort claims bars all other recovery