see also L. 1979, c. 288, 8; Senate Labor, Industry and Professions Committee, Joint Statement to Senate Committee Substitute for Senate No. 802 and Assembly Committee Substitute for Assembly No. 8h0, at 2 (Nov. 13, 1979). The employee decides whether to negotiate towards a settlement and to the terms of any settlement. It is within the power of the employee either to provide for the payment of outstanding medical bills in a Section 20 settlement or to pursue a hearing to compel an employer to assume responsibility for those payments. The employer and the employee, however, cannot extinguish the rights of those who do not participate, or do not have the opportunity to participate, in a settlement. Cf. Kibble v. Weeks Dredging Constr. Co., 161 N.J. 178, 194-95, 735 A2d 1142 (1999) (<HOLDING>); Hetherington v. Briarwood Coachlight, 253
holding that consent of workers dependents must be obtained for section 20 settlement that purports to waive dependency benefits holding that the workers compensation offset includes total social security disability benefits received by claimant and his dependents holding that section 20 claims are governed by section 1658b bjecause section 20 merely creates a derivative liability for violations of other sections of the act holding that carriers consent required if past and future benefits might exceed settlement holding that employers insurer who provided workers compensation benefits to employee but did not consent to employees settlement with thirdparty tortfeasor may maintain an action for payments that become payable in the future