Court Opinion

ID: 9728437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:07:50.636808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:48.588247
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Section 449 of the Workers’ Compensation Act1 permits employers to avoid agreements that they validly make with claimants simply on account of a claimant’s death. A logical and fair reading of Section 449 compels the conclusion that a compromise and release may be effectuated after the death of a claimant in some circumstances, particularly when counsel for the employer as here enters into a stipulation acknowledging on behalf of the employer that an agreement had been reached. Reading Section 449 to prevent the execution of a compromise and release agreement after a claimant’s death directly conflicts with the section’s provision for execution by signature of the claimant’s “widow or widower.”
I cannot agree that Section 449 is intended to allow an employer to simply change its mind and refuse to honor an agreement which it has admitted to having entered in a written stipulation. Compare *82Rissmiller v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Warminster Township), 768 A.2d 1212 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2001) (holding that an oral compromise and release agreement was unenforceable where there was no written stipulation between the parties). Section 449 is intended to ensure that compromise and release agreements are properly reached and that claimants fully understand the legal significance of such agreements. The majority’s conclusion that employers may use Section 449 to avoid obligations is inconsistent with the well-settled principle that the Act be liberally construed in the injured employee’s favor and in furtherance of its humanitarian purpose. Gardner v. Erie Insurance Co., 555 Pa. 59, 722 A.2d 1041 (1999).2
Furthermore, I strongly disagree with the majority’s assertion that a claimant may not submit a compromise and release agreement to a WCJ for approval. Section 449(b) specifically allows employers and insurers to submit the agreement to the WCJ, but it does not contain language prohibiting claimants from doing so. I can fathom no reason why the legislature could have intended to prohibit a claimant from providing the WCJ with a stipulation which both parties have signed.

. Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, added by Section 22 of the Act of June 24, 1996, P.L. 350, 77 P.S. § 1000.5.

. The Court’s decision in Blessing v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Heintz Corp.), 737 A.2d 820 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999), appeal denied, 561 Pa. 701, 751 A.2d 193 (2000), is distinguishable. In Blessing the employer refused to sign or submit a written compromise and release agreement to the WCJ and maintained that no actual agreement had been reached between the parties.