# North Penn Sanitation, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 10, 2004 · 850 A.2d 795

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9759531

## Case

- **Full name:** NORTH PENN SANITATION, INC., Petitioner v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (DILLARD), Respondent
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** May 10, 2004
- **Citations:** 850 A.2d 795; 2004 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 373
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Leadbetter
- **Judges:** Friedman, Leadbetter, Kelley
- **Cited by:** 16 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9759531

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming a Board adjudication setting aside an agreement for mutual mistake

## Opinion text

CONCURRING OPINION BY
Judge LEADBETTER.
I agree with the result reached by the majority. Nonetheless, I must disagree that an approved compromise and release agreement [C & R] which has become final may be set aside on the basis of mutual mistake. The majority correctly notes that the statute allows the setting aside of final receipts and supplemental agreements when they are later shown to have been materially incorrect. However, these are private agreements reached by the parties. A C & R, on the other hand, is effective only when approved in an order, and by statute that order must follow a hearing, a disclosure of all pertinent facts, and be based upon a specific finding that the claimant understood the full legal significance of his agreement.
*802 I believe it is because of this very significant difference that the statute specifically provides for the setting aside of the former types of agreements but not C & Rs. Hence, C & Rs and their factual underpinnings may be challenged, like other final orders, only when the doctrines of issue and claim preclusion do not apply. Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, would ordinarily prevent a claimant from later controverting a WCJ’s unappealed finding of fact that he fully understood the basis and consequences of his bargain. Here, however, I would allow reconsideration of the issue because it is plain that this claimant did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the first time around.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9759531. Public record. Not legal advice.