Su Hoang v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
51 A.3d 905
Pa. Commw. Ct.2012Background
- Claimant sustained October 5, 2007 work-related right carpal tunnel syndrome while employed by Employer.
- Employer accepted the injury and paid benefits based on an average weekly wage of $835.62.
- On May 7, 2009 the parties entered a Compromise and Release (C&R) for $9,900, with $1,900 to Claimant’s attorney.
- WCJ Doneker approved the C&R on May 8, 2009 after Claimant, with translator help, acknowledged understanding and rights waived.
- Claimant later contested the C&R, alleging mutual or unilateral mistake regarding unpaid medical bills and seeking rescission; he also argued inconsistent contract terms.
- Board affirmed WCJ’s denial of review and penalties; Claimant appealed to this Court claiming various grounds to rescind or construe the C&R.
- Both WCJ and Board found no clear evidence that Employer was mistaken or knew of Claimant’s alleged unilateral mistake; the court upheld the C&R.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mutual mistake justifies rescission of the C&R. | Claimant asserts mutual mistake as to unpaid medical bills. | Employer contends no clear, precise, indubitable mutual mistake proven. | No rescission on mutual mistake; evidence insufficient. |
| Whether unilateral mistake supports rescission given Employer's knowledge or reason to know Claimant’s mistake. | Employer knew of Claimant’s mistake and relief should be granted. | No evidence of Employer’s intent; collateral estoppel applies; no unilateral mistake proven. | No relief for unilateral mistake; no showing of Employer’s intent. |
| Whether Paragraphs 13 and 18 of the C&R are inconsistent and require narrow construction. | General vs. specific terms conflict; should construe for future-only medical expense relief. | Paragraph 18 controls; language supports full, final settlement of all claims. | No conflict; Paragraph 18 provides full and final settlement; no construction against Employer warranted. |
| Whether the C&R adequately addressed payment of medical expenses and related issues. | Medical bills remained unpaid at settlement; should reflect in agreement. | Agreement did not expressly require payment of medical bills; proper terms exist. | C&R sufficiently addressed medical entitlements; no rescission. |
Key Cases Cited
- North Penn Sanitation, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Dillard), 850 A.2d 795 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004) (mutual mistake shown where settlement omitted a major injury)
- Famer v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Rockwell International), 869 A.2d 1075 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (collateral estoppel bars relief for a later argument of mistake)
- Betterman v. American Stores Co., 367 Pa. 193 (Pa. 1951) (contractual interpretation against drafter when ambiguity exists)
- Galligan v. Arovitch, 421 Pa. 301 (Pa. 1966) (restrictive interpretation when contract reduces legal rights; require utmost particularity)
- Lanci v. Metropolitan Insurance Co., 388 Pa.Super. 1 (Pa. Super. 1989) (illustrates misperceived policy limits as basis for unilateral/mutual mistake relief)
- Land v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., noted in opinion (Pa. Super. 1989) (insurer knew or should have known of claimant’s mistaken belief about policy)
- Miller v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Electrolux), 940 A.2d 603 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008) (MSPA considerations when future medical expenses are involved)