Commonwealth Court rejects the claimant's argument that a C&R agreement should be rescinded due to a mutual or unilateral mistake on behalf of the employer.
The claimant sustained a work-related injury in October of 2007 that was acknowledged by a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). In 2009, the parties entered into a Compromise and Release Agreement (C&R) and sought approval of the C&R at a hearing conducted by a Judge. The claimant testified at the hearing, with the claimant's son acting as a translator. The claimant testified that he understood he was giving up his right to any claim for benefits and that, if the settlement was approved, he could never come back against the employer or the insurance company for any reason. The claimant also told the judge, in response to her questions, that his son translated the C&R for him and that he was satisfied that all of his questions had been answered. The judge approved the C&R agreement.
After the C&R was approved, the claimant's counsel discovered that there was an unpaid medical bill totaling $37,674. The claimant's counsel sent the employer's counsel a copy of the bill, along with a letter stating that the claimant believed that all medical bills had been paid at the time of settlement. Later, the claimant's counsel sent the employer's counsel another letter, restating a phone conversation in which the employer's counsel admitted to being unaware of the bill at the time of settlement and stating that he had been told that the treatment at issue is not related to the work injury. Ultimately, the claimant filed review and penalty petitions, seeking to rescind the C&R on the basis of mutual mistake of fact, as well as a unilateral mistake on behalf of the employer.
The judge dismissed the claimant's petitions, and the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirmed. Both the judge and the Board pointed out that the approved C&R did not contain language acknowledging that all reasonable and necessary medical bills had been paid.
The Commonwealth Court affirmed the decisions below, concluding that there was a lack of evidence presented by the claimant that the C&R should be rescinded based on a mutual mistake of fact or a unilateral mistake of fact. According to the court, there was simply no evidence that the employer knew or should have known of the claimant's mistake regarding the unpaid medical bill. The court also referenced language contained in paragraph 18 of the C&R specifically stating that the agreement resolved "all indemnity and medical to which claimant may have been entitled for any injuries sustained while working for the employer, and that the C&R represented a full and final settlement of any claim, both past, present and future, that claimant had against the employer."
Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2012