IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Deborah J. Clarius, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 897 C .D. 20 2 3

: Submitted : June 6 , 2024

Rite Aid Corporation (Workers ’ :

Compensation Appeal Board), :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON , Judge

HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS

, Judge

HONORABLE STACY WALLACE , Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BY JUDGE WALLACE FILED: July 19, 2024

Deborah J. Clarius (Claimant) petitions for review (Petition for Review) of

the July 18, 2023 opinion and order (Order) of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal

Board (Board)

, which affirmed the decision and order (Decision) of the Workers’

Compensation Judge (WCJ) dismissing the Petition to Review Medical Treatment

and/or Billing (Review Medical Petition) Claimant filed against Rite Aid

Corporation (Employer). After review, we affirm.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Represented by counsel

, Claimant entered into a Co mpromise and Release ( C

& R ) under the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act) 1 with Employer on February 6,

1 Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended , 77 P.S. §§ 1

- 1041.4, 2501

- 2710.2

2020

. Following a hearing, WCJ Leah Lewis (WCJ Lewis) issued an opinion

approving the C & R on February 11, 2020

.

In September 2022

, Claimant filed a Review Medical Petition alleging

medical bills for a 2018 left knee injury remained unpaid . Reproduced Record

(R.R.) at 29. Central to her arguments, Claimant alleges two separate injuries with

Employer : a 2018 left knee injury and a 2019 right knee injury. She argues the C &

R applie d to the 2019 right knee injury only

. Further, Claimant alleges h er counsel

and the insurance companies involved were different for each injury.

The matter was assigned to W CJ Karl Peckmann (WCJ Peckmann). WCJ

Peckmann held hearing s and received evidence

. At one hearing, counsel presented

arguments to WCJ P eckmann about the C & R , specifically what injuries it

addressed. WCJ Peckmann gave the parties an opportunity to submit written

arguments on the issue. See Certified Record ( C.R. ) at 60. 2 In addition to the

arguments, WCJ P eckmann reviewed the transcript of Claimant’s testimony from

the February 6, 2020 hearing before WCJ Lewis and WCJ Lewis’s February 11

,

2020 decision approving the C & R . Bd

. Order

, 7/18/23, at 2. Ultimately, WCJ

Pec kmann found the C & R “prevent[s]

. . . [C] laimant from pursuing any additional

claims against

. . . Employer.” WCJ Dec., 1/23/23, Conclusions of Law ( C.L. ) ¶ 2

.

WCJ P eckmann dismissed Claimant’s Review Medical P etition based on his

finding the C & R prevented Claimant from pursuing any additional claim s against

Employer. The Board agreed with the WCJ’s finding that the language of the C &

R was clear, and it affirmed.

Claimant now appeals to this Court. In her Petition for Review, Claimant

raises the issue of whether the C & R bars and settles her claim regarding her 2018

2 The Certified Record is not paginated. We use the electronic page numbers for ease of reference.3

left kne e injury . P et. for R ev

. , ¶ 9 . Claimant asks this Court to reverse the Board’s

Order and grant her Review Medical Petition.

II. Discussion

On appeal, this Court reviews orders for violations of a petitioner’s

constitutional rights, violations of agency practice and procedure, and other errors

of law. 2 Pa.C.S. § 704. We also review whether substantial evidence supports the

findings of fact necessary to sustain the decis ion. Id. Significantly, the WCJ is the

factfinder in workers’ compensation matters and is entitled to weigh the evidence

and assess credibility of witnesses. Montano v. Advance Stores Co., Inc. (Workers’

Comp. Appeal Bd.)

, 278 A.3d 969, 978 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022) (quoting Sharkey v.

Workers ’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Fed. Express) , 786 A.2d 1035, 1038 (Pa. Cmwlth.

2001)). We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party that

prevailed before the WCJ, drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the WCJ’s

decision. Id.

Our review begin s with Se c tion 449 of the Act, 77 P.S. § 1000 .5. 3 Section

449 of the Act governs C & R agreement s in workers’ compensation claims , and it

provides a C & R is not valid and binding until approved by a W CJ

. Id. A WCJ is

not to approve a C & R without first determining whether a claimant understands its

full legal significance. 77 P.S. § 1000.5(b).

This Court addressed C & R agreements in Hymms v. Commonwealth

(Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board) , 281 A.3d 375 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022). Hymms

provides “[i]t is well established that once approved, a valid C & R agreement is

final, conclusive, and binding on the parties.” Id. at 375 (citation omitted). “Courts

may rescind a C & R agreement based on a clear showing of fraud, deception, duress,

3 A dded by

, Act of June 24, 1996, P.L. 350, 77 P.S. § 1000.5

.4

or mutual mistake.” Id. (citation omitted). Compared to fraud, deception, or duress,

“the test to set aside a C & R agreement on the basis of mutual mistake is more

stringent.” Id. (quoting Farner v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Rockwell Int’l)

, 869

A.2d 1075, 1078 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) ) . Therefore, “in order for mutual mistake to

constitute a basis for invalidating a C & R agreement, the party seeking to set aside

the agreement must prove both parties [were] mistaken as to a present, material fact

that existed at the time the [C & R] agr eement was executed.” Id. (quoting Farner

,

869 A.2d at 1078

- 79 )

. Moreover, for evidence to demonstrate a mutual mistake, that

evidence must be clear, precise, and definitive. Id. Regarding unilateral mistake, if

a party alleges such mistake supports relief, generally the mistake must be the other

party’s fault. Id. (citing Farner

, 869 A.2d at 1078 n.5 ) . However, “[i]f a party to a

contract knows or has reason to know of a unilateral mistake by the other party and

the mistake, as well as the actual intent of the parties, is clearly shown, relief will be

granted to the same extent as if a mutual mistake e xisted.” Id. (quoting Welsh v. State

Emps. Ret. Bd.

, 808 A.2d 261, 265 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) ) . The party seeking to set

aside the C & R agreement has the burden of proof. Id. at 379

- 80 (citing N. Penn

Sanitation, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Dillard)

, 850 A.2d 795, 799 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2004) ).

WCJ Peck mann found that at the time Claimant testified before WCJ Lewis

,

“she understood by settling her claim that she was closing out everything and

nothing else [was] happening with . . . Employer.” Id

. ; see C.R. at 77. At the hearing

regarding the C & R, WCJ Lewis explained to Claimant that her “ only role [was] to

make sure [Claimant ] underst [oo] d the legal significance of what [she was] entering

into by signing [the C & R] agreement

. ” C.R. at 81. WCJ Lewis then asked Claimant

whether she understood, and Claimant responded : “Yes, I do.” Id

. Further, WCJ5

Lewis questioned Claimant about her understanding of the legal significance of the

C & R , and Claimant respon d ed again that she underst ood

. See

, e.g

. , C.R. at 77

- 78

.

WCJ Lewis issued an opinion approving the C & R.

In his decision, WCJ P eckmann pointed to paragraph four of the C & R which

stated it “resolve [d] all claims ” including those claims “which Claimant may have

sustained while working for Employer.” WCJ Dec., 1/23/23, Findings of Fact ¶ 8.

WCJ Peck mann found “ [t] he language of the [C & R] , which was attached to [WCJ ]

Lewis’ [s ] February 11, 2020 Decision, is unambiguous. On three separate occasions

it references an intent to resolve any and all work injury claims that Claimant had or

might have with Employer. ” Id. ¶ 9 ; see also C.R. at 90

- 92. We conclude WCJ

Peck mann had substantial evidence to support a finding the C & R was valid

,

binding, and prevented Claimant from bringing a claim petition against Employer.

While Claimant does not petition to set aside the C & R, the Board considered

the Petition for Review a request to do so , and so do we. Once a C & R is approved,

a party seeking to set it aside must show either fraud, deception, duress, or mutual

mistake. N. Penn Sanitation Inc. , 850 A.2d 795. Here, Claimant makes no allegation

of fraud, deception, or duress. Therefore, to set aside the C & R, Claimant must

prove there was a mutual m i stake. Alternatively, Claimant m ust prove Empl oyer

knew of Claimant’s unilateral mistake and prove the inte nt of both parties at the time

they executed the C & R

.

Claimant asserts “ obviously there was a mutual mistake of fact.” Claimant’s

Brief at 10. She contends the failure to specifically mention th e 2018 left knee injury

during her hearing before WCJ Lewis indicate d the C & R settled her 2019 right

knee injury only. Id. at 8. She further contends the C & R itself mentions the 20196

right knee injury only. Claimant argues at the time she and Employer entered into

the C & R, they entered into it for the 2019 claim only. Id. at 9.

In Claimant’s Brief, she acknowledges there were never any payments made

for her 2018 left knee injury claim. Claimant then states she submitted bills for her

2018 left knee injury “all along.” P et. for R ev

. , ¶ 13. The record contains no

evidence of these bill s , no r proof of payment or denial of payment. While Claimant

alleges a 2018 left knee injury, the record contains no claim petition, notice o r

acknowledgement from Employer, medical records, n or any testimony regarding the

2018 left knee injury

. Claimant additionally alleges her counsel and the insurance

companies involved with each injury were different, leading to confusion. However,

Claimant fails to offer any evidence regarding her previous counsel

. Given the lack

of evidence in the record to support her assertions, we are unable to determine the

intent of Employer from the record before us. Ultimately, Claimant fail s to offer

any support for her argument based upon mu tual mistake of fact at the time she and

Employer executed the C & R. Likewise, Claimant fails to establish the intent of

the parties at the time they entered into the C & R and fails to demonstrate Employer

was aware of a mistake on the part of Claimant.

III. Conclusion

Given our standard of review in this matter, we are constrained to review in

the light most favorable to the party prevailing before the WCJ and interpret in favor

of that prevailing party. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the WCJ’s findings

are supported by substantial evidence, the WCJ committed no error of law or

violation of Claimant’s constitutional rights, and the Board properly affirmed the

WCJ Decision.7

Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s Order.

______________________________

STACY WALLACE , JudgeIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Deborah J. Clarius, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 897 C.D. 2023

:

Rite Aid Corporation (Workers ’ :

Compensation Appeal Board), :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW , this 19th day of July 202 4

, the July 18, 2023 order of the

Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board is AFFIRMED

.

______________________________ STACY WALLACE , Judge