Opinion ID: 2626668
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Misrepresentation and Fraud

Text: Smith also seeks to set aside the partial C & R because of fraud. The Board refused to do so, finding no credible, specific evidence of misrepresentation or fraud or duress by the employer to coerce the employee to sign the C & R. Here, Smith argues that CSK Auto misrepresented who his treating physician was in the partial C & R, that this misrepresentation was material, and that he relied on the misrepresentation. CSK Auto responds that the Commission was correct in concluding that substantial evidence in the record supported the Board's findings about misrepresentation and fraud. We have held that in a workers' compensation case, an employee is required to show the following to avoid a settlement based on misrepresentation: (1) a misrepresentation; (2) which was fraudulent or material; (3) which induced the party to enter into the contract; (4) upon which the party was justified in relying. [17] In the section of the partial C & R setting out the parties' dispute, CSK Auto stated, On November 14, 2001, Dr. Klimow, the employee's treating physician, approved the employee to return to [positions Smith had held in the ten years prior to his work-related injury]. The Board described the agreement as containing an accurate, if sketchy, history of [Smith's] medical treatment; the Board noted that Dr. Klimow was Smith's treating physician in November 2001 and that the partial C & R showed that Smith was being treated by Dr. Anderson as of June 2002. We agree with the Commission that substantial evidence in the record supports the Board's conclusion that this statement was not a misrepresentation. A misrepresentation is a statement that is not in accord with the facts. [18] As the Board noted, Dr. Klimow was Smith's treating physician on November 14, 2001, when she indicated that he could return to work he had previously done. But even if the statement were a misrepresentationthat is, if treating physician meant current treating physician Smith could not have justifiably relied on it because he knew when he signed the agreement that Dr. Klimow was not his treating physician. [19] Not only does the partial C & R itself state that Dr. Anderson was treating Smith in June 2002, Smith listed only Dr. Pierson as his treating physician on his workers' compensation claim form, and he wrote to Dr. Anderson about the IDET procedure at the time he signed the partial C & R. Smith also alleges that Williams withheld information about PTD benefits or failed to inform him about them and claims that she misrepresented herself and breached a fiduciary duty to him in her representation of him in the proceeding. The Board made no findings related to these allegations, stating, Whether or not there is any basis for the employee's assertions that Ms. Williams represented him inappropriately, those assertions are irrelevant. The Commission concurred. We agree with the Commission and the Boardin order for one party to avoid a contract on grounds of misrepresentation, the misrepresentation must be made by the other party to the contract. [20] Williams was not a party to the contract, nor was she a representative of CSK Auto, so any representation she made cannot be a reason to avoid the partial C & R.