H.A. Harper Sons, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 12
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Employer challenged Board's April 24, 2013 reversal of a WCJ on supersedeas fund reimbursement; this appeal concerns an AWW calculation and a C&R settlement.
- Claimant Sweigart was awarded benefits with AWW $542.50 and rate $389.50; Board later reduced AWW to $226.98 and rate to $204.28.
- Employer filed a termination petition; a C&R Agreement settled future liability for $50,000 and WCJ approved May 21, 2009, releasing Employer for the specified liability.
- Board December 22, 2009 affirmed reduction of AWW; Employer paid roughly $20,241.90 more than it would have under the Board's AWW ruling.
- The issue is whether the C&R resolved all litigation so as to bar Fund reimbursement; the Court held it did not, and reversed the Board.
- The opinion relies on the Bethlehem Structural/Stroehmann framework for whether a C&R moots pending petitions and whether overpayments are recoverable from the Fund.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the C&R settle the exact issue on appeal (AWW) mooting Fund reimbursement? | Sweigart: C&R resolved all past, present, and future liability. | Employer: C&R resolved only future liability; AWW issue remained unresolved. | No; C&R did not settle the AWW issue. |
| Does the Bethlehem Structural/Stroehmann test apply to determine mootness when a C&R exists? | Sweigart: test shows unresolved issues; Board erred. | Employer: test should moot pending petitions. | Yes, test applies; C&R did not moot the AWW dispute. |
| Whether overpaid benefits prior to C&R are recoverable from the Fund despite C&R. | Sweigart: overpayments tied to AWW error; Fund should reimburse. | Employer: overpayments are not addressed by C&R; seek Fund relief. | Overpayments not settled by C&R; Board erred in denying reimbursement. |
| Did the Board properly apply the C&R language to resolve only future obligations? | Employer sought reimbursement for pre-C&R overpayments. | Board treated C&R as final resolution of all disputes. | C&R language shows intent to resolve only future liabilities; not the AWW dispute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stroehmann Bakeries v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Plouse), 768 A.2d 1193 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (settlement to encourage finality; mootness analysis tied to issues resolved by C&R)
- Bethlehem Structural Products v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Vernon), 789 A.2d 767 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (whether C&R settles the exact issue in appeal; focus on language and scope of the agreement)
- Department of Labor v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Bd. (U.S. Food Service), 932 A.2d 309 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (compromise with broad release language; all‑encompassing language may moot petitions)
- Coyne Textile v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Voorhis), 840 A.2d 872 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (reservation of rights and timing; whether agreement defeats mootness depends on issue scope)
- Hurst v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Preston Trucking Co.), 823 A.2d 1052 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2003) (overpayment relief not under Act; Fund recovery required)