With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Ill. App. 3d 604, 613 (2006). Henkels also argues that the trial court failed to adequately consider the circumstances surrounding the settlement. Specifically, Henkels asserts that the trial court ignored the fact that Pederson orchestrated the settlement for a nominal amount in order to circumvent its lien rights and remove an impediment to his pending malpractice action. There is no evidence that the trial court failed to adequately consider the circumstances surrounding the settlement. While the settlement amount may have been less than the amount of compensation benefits which Henkels paid to Pederson, the Act does not require a workers’ compensation settlement agreement to fully compensate the employer in order to be valid. See In re Estate of Dierkes, 191 Ill. 2d 326, 333 (2000) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. Louis Joliet Shoppingtown L.P., 377

A: recognizing that an employer is liable for an employees action if the employer knew or should have known about an employees acts of harassment and fails to take appropriate remedial action
B: 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
C: holding that no independent commonlaw duty exists on the part of an employer to preserve evidence for an employees potential civil action against third parties
D: recognizing that the compensation that an employer pays may exceed an employees recovery from third parties
D.