V.J. Cantera v. Worley & Obetz (WCAB), 835 C.D. 2020

In 2013 Claimant (Vincent J. Cantera) suffered a work injury; Employer originally accepted it and the WCJ later expanded the injury description to include a low back injury.
Employer filed a termination petition; on December 5, 2014 the WCJ granted termination, finding Claimant had fully recovered.
The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirmed on November 17, 2015; the Commonwealth Court affirmed on September 9, 2016, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance on May 16, 2017.
On July 29, 2020—more than 4½ years after the Board order and more than 3 years after the Supreme Court denial—Claimant filed a petition for rehearing under Section 426 alleging after-discovered evidence (a romantic relationship involving an Employer witness and the Employer’s CEO and criminal convictions of the CEO), false expert testimony, constitutional defects, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Board denied the rehearing as untimely on August 4, 2020; Claimant appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which affirmed the Board’s denial on July 13, 2021.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness / Jurisdiction under §426 (18‑month limit)	Claimant argued new evidence warranted rehearing despite delay.	Board/Employer argued petition was filed beyond §426’s 18‑month limit and Board lacked jurisdiction after final appellate orders.	Petition untimely; Board properly denied rehearing. Board also divested of jurisdiction after Commonwealth Court’s final order.
Sufficiency of alleged after‑discovered evidence	Claimant asserted romantic relationship and CEO criminality were newly discovered and would impeach Employer’s witness/affect outcome.	Employer/Board argued allegations were conclusory and would not change the result; no affidavits or medical proof offered.	Even if timely, the alleged new evidence was too conclusory and would not justify reopening the case.
Allegations of ineffective assistance / constitutional error / false expert testimony	Claimant claimed counsel was ineffective and expert testimony lacked factual/scientific basis, warranting rehearing.	Board/Employer contended claims were bald, unsupported, and insufficient to require a new hearing.	Court found these were generalized, unsupported allegations and do not mandate rehearing.

Haverford State Hosp. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Johnson), 675 A.2d 396 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (Section 426’s 18‑month limit is mandatory and cannot be extended for after‑discovered evidence)
Smiths Implements, Inc. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Leonard), 673 A.2d 1039 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (petition for rehearing must be filed within 18 months of Board action)
Kuriakose v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (J.F. Kennedy Hosp.), 681 A.2d 1389 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (a final order by this Court divests the Board of jurisdiction to grant rehearing)
Jones v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Midland‑Ross Corp.), 612 A.2d 570 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (Board lacks jurisdiction after appellate finality)
Martell v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Doyle Equipment), 707 A.2d 242 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (Board’s discretion to rehear does not require reopening for merely weak or omitted proofs)
UGI Corp. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Wagner), 566 A.2d 1264 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (conclusory assertions of after‑discovered evidence without affidavits or documentation insufficient)
Cisco v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (A&P Tea Co.), 488 A.2d 1194 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (newly discovered evidence must be shown to potentially change the outcome)
Puhl v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Sharon Steel Corp.), 724 A.2d 997 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (rehearing not permitted merely to strengthen previously weak proofs)