 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stroehmann Bakeries2/5/2001
SUBMITTED: December 1, 2000
Stroehmann Bakeries, Inc. (Employer) petitions for review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) that affirmed the decision of a workers' compensation judge (WCJ) that dismissed Employer's termination/suspension petition and Joseph Plouse's (Claimant) claim petition as moot based on a conclusion that the parties' signed compromise and release agreement (C&R; controlled any issues between the parties. We affirm.
On September 18, 1995, Claimant filed a claim petition alleging that he initially sustained a work-related injury on November 9, 1994, but that he returned to work. Claimant further alleged that on February 15, 1995, he slipped at work and was re-injured. Although Employer at first denied benefits for the February 15 th injury, it subsequently accepted liability and issued a notice of compensation payable (NCP), recognizing the February 15 th injury as an injury to Claimant's "thoracic and lumbar area back." (NCP, dated June 5, 1996). Then on January 8, 1997, Employer filed a petition to suspend and/or terminate Claimant's benefits, alleging that Claimant was fully recovered as of October 1, 1996 or was capable of returning to his pre-injury job.
The petitions were consolidated for hearings before WCJ Mark Peleak and were litigated to conclusion. However, before WCJ Peleak issued his decision, the parties agreed to enter a C&R; which was approved by WCJ Karl Baldys on September 14, 1998. The terms of the C&R;provided that Claimant would be paid a lump sum of $30,000 in exchange for a release of Employer's liability to pay wage loss and/or medical benefits arising out of the February 15, 1995 injury and that all benefits were to cease as of August 7, 1998.
Despite entering into the C&R; Employer requested that WCJ Peleak still issue his decision, based on the record, which included testimony provided by Claimant on his own behalf and the deposition testimony of Lawrence S. Tomack, M.D., and Theodore F. Them, M.D., both presented by Employer. The WCJ also noted that Claimant presented no medical testimony in opposition to that presented by Employer. Furthermore, pertinent to the issues raised in this case, the WCJ found that Dr. Them concluded that Claimant was fully recovered as of April 23, 1997. However, the WCJ cited the C&R;and concluded in his decision issued on May 26, 1999 that:
2. Although the medical evidence submitted by the Employer, Stroehmann Bakeries, shows that the Claimant had recovered from his work injury by April 23, 1997, the parties entered into a compromise and release agreement setting forth that the Claimant would be paid compensation through August 7, 1998 in exchange for a full and complete release of any further benefits, thus the outstanding petitions are moot and the parties should hereinafter be controlled by the compromise and release agreement they have entered into. (WCJ's decision, p. 4).
Accordingly, the WCJ dismissed the petitions as moot and ordered that the C&R;controlled. On appeal, the Board affirmed, concluding that the language of the C&R;controlled and that Employer can not constructively attempt to amend the C&R;by continuing this litigation.
On appeal to this Court, Employer argues that the WCJ and the Board erred in determining that its termination petition was moot and in failing to issue a decision on the merits. Employer also argues that, although the WCJ correctly found that evidence supported an earlier date of full recovery, he erred in refusing to rule on the termination petition.
In support of its argument, Employer cites Sections 418 and 422(a) of the Workers' Co
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|