Nаncy E. Johnson (Claimant) appeals from an order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) affirming the decision of a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) to reinstate Claimant’s total disability benefits for the period from April 26,1987 to June 30, 1987 and dismissing Claimant’s nunc pro tunc appeal. We reverse and remand.
Claimant was employed by the Budd Cоmpany (Employer) when, on May 19, 1981, she sustained a work-related injury. Claimant received workers’ compensation benefits for various periоds of time and, eventually, returned to work in a light duty position. However, on April 26, 1985,
On July 14, 1986, Claimant filed a petition for reinstatement of benefits alleging that shе returned to work with restrictions but, as of April 26, 1985, she was laid off from her employment. Employer filed a timely answer on July 31, 1986, and hearings were held before a WCJ.
Based on the evidence presented, the WCJ found that Claimant was laid off from her employment on April 26, 1987 with residual medical problems. Thus, on September 7, 1988, the WCJ issued a decision granting Claimant’s reinstatement petition for a period beginning on April 26, 1987. Employer filed a timely appеal on October 3, 1988.
On April 13, 1989, oral argument was held on Employer’s appeal before the WCAB. During oral argument, Claimant asked the WCAB to correct the typographical or clerical error in the WCJ’s decision. (O.R., Claimant’s letter of May 26, 1989.) On May 22, 1989, Employer withdrew its appeal. (O.R., WCAB docket entries.) By letter dated May 26, 1989, Claimant urged the WCAB to address the typographical or clerical error despite the withdrawal of Employer’s appeal. (O.R., Claimant’s letter of May 26, 1989.) In a letter dated May 31, 1989, Employer objected to Claimant’s request because there was no longer an appeal before the WCAB. (O.R., Employer’s letter of May 31, 1989.)
On June 9, 1989, Claimant filed an appeal nunc pro tunc with the WCAB challenging the WCJ’s finding that Claimant was laid off from her employment on April 26, 1987. (R.R. at 6a-7a.) On June 28,1989, when the WCAB issued an order acknowledging that
On December 14, 1993, the WCAB received a letter from Claimant inquiring about the disposition of Claimant’s nunc pro tunc appeal, which had not been withdrawn. (O.R., Claimant’s letter of December 7,1993.) Subsequently, the WCAB recognized its error and scheduled argument on Claimant’s appeal. Following argument, the WCAB dismissed the appeal because Claimant failed to file the appeal within twenty days of the WCJ’s decision and because Claimant was not entitled to an appeal nunc pro tunc.
On appeal to this court,
As a preliminary matter, we note that the WCAB trеated Claimant’s appeal nunc pro tunc as such, rather than as a petition for modification under section 413 of the Act. We fail to understand why, for the sake of judicial economy, the WCAB did not simply treat the appeal as a petition for modification and remand the matter to thе WCJ for correction of the erroneous date.
Indeed, section 413 of the Act, 77 P.S. § 771 (emphasis added), provides in pertinent part:
A [WCJ] may, at any time, review and modify ... a notice of compensation payable and an original or supplemental agreement ... if it be proved that such notice of compensation payable or agreement was in аny material respect incorrect.
In Drozd v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (The Lion, Inc.),
In fact, this court has held that an administrative agency may, on its own motion, correct typographical, cleriсal and mechanical errors, as well as undisputed factual errors and factual misconceptions, provided proper notiсe and explanation is given. Cohen v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board,
Because a сlaimant may file a petition for modification of a WCJ’s decision at any time in order to correct a material typographical or clerical error, and because the WCAB may, on its own motion, order the correction of undisputed factual errors in a WCJ’s decision, we cоnclude that the WCAB erred in failing to consider the typographical error in the WCJ’s decision here. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cаse to the WCAB for remand to a WCJ for correction of the WCJ’s decision.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 2nd day of May, 1997, the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeаl Board (WCAB), at A-97401, dated August 26, 1996, is reversed, and this case is remanded to the WCAB for remand to a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) for correction of the WCJ’s decision.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
Notes
. The WCJ found that Claimant was laid off on April 26, 1987; however, it is undisputed in the record that the layoff occurred in 1985. (R.R. at 2a, 29a, 101a-03a, 105a.) Thus, in drafting thе opinion, the WCJ must have made a typographical or clerical error with respect to the year of Claimant’s layoff from work.
. Undеr section 423 of the Workers' Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 853, a party has twenty days to file an appeal with the WCAB.
. The WCAB acknowledged thаt there was "a clerical breakdown" at the WCAB. (WCAB’s op. at 2.)
. Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violatеd, an error of law was committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Hastings v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Mastech Construction),
. 77P.S. §771.
. In workers’ compensation matters, the form of the filing is not controlling where the facts warrаnt relief for a claimant. Blue Bell Printing v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Montgomery Publishing Co.), 115 Pa.Cmwlth.203,
. Thus, in Station v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc.),