Court Affirms Termination Petition After C&R Agreement Limits Scope of Work Injury

In a recent decision, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a ruling that granted an employer’s Termination Petition after a Compromise and Release (C&R) Agreement limited the scope of a worker’s compensable injuries. The claimant sought to expand the recognized injury to include his left knee. However, the court held that the C&R Agreement resolved all claims except the termination of benefits for the head injury, leaving no basis to pursue additional injury claims.

The claimant sustained work injuries when he slipped and fell on ice while working as a door-to-door salesman for the employer. The employer filed a Termination Petition, alleging the claimant had fully recovered from the head injury he sustained. The claimant then filed Claim and Review Petitions, alleging that the description of his injuries on the Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP) was overly broad. Specifically, the claimant alleged that he also sustained a work injury to his left knee.

The claimant’s petitions were later amended to request approval of a C&R Agreement, which was approved by the worker’s compensation judge. The approved C&R stated that the Termination Petition would be decided by the judge. Otherwise, all other issues were resolved by the C&R. Later, the judge issued a decision, granting the Termination Petition based on the medical evidence presented by the employer. The claimant then appealed to the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Board, which affirmed.

The claimant appealed to the Commonwealth Court and argued that the C&R Agreement should not preclude him from expanding the description of his injuries to include one to his left knee. According to the claimant, the C&R Agreement did not resolve the alleged left knee aspect of his work injury.

The Commonwealth Court dismissed the claimant’s appeal and affirmed the decisions of the judge and the Appeal Board. They noted that the C&R Agreement limited the scope of compensable injuries to a soft tissue head injury and that the claimant did not contest his recovery from that injury. Therefore, that Termination Petition was properly granted.

The court additionally noted that the claimant’s Review Petitions asserting injuries to the left knee were later amended to one single petition, seeking C&R Agreement approval, without reserving the right to litigate the left knee issues. This left only the Termination Petition, where the sole issue was whether the claimant had fully recovered from the head injury.