This Court previously held that a claimant had elected a remedy, thus forgoing workers' compensation benefits, by settling a third-party claim without complying with the notice requirements of § 42-1-560, even though the carrier had actual knowledge of the third-party suit. Fisher, supra; see also Hardee v. Bruce Johnson Trucking Co., 293 S.C. 349, 354 — 355, 360 S.E.2d 522, 525 (Ct.App.1987)(discussing the facts of Fisher). Additionally, prior cases interpreting this statute have found that prejudice should not be considered. See Hudson, supra (finding claimant's prejudice argument ' 'unpersuasive, if in fact the question of prejudice is relevant at alT'(citing Stroy v. Millwood Drug Store, 235 S.C. 52, 109 S.E.2d 706 (1959)); Kimmer v. Murata, 372 S.C. 39, 640 S.E.2d 507
holding that prejudice is not an element to be considered in regard to the failure to give mandated statutory notice holding that actual prejudice is not a necessary element of an insurers untimely notice defense holding that prejudice or injury is a necessary element of standing holding that causation is an essential element in failure to warn claim holding that the failure to instruct on a definition or to amplify an element is not a failure to instruct on an essential element