STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION
P O BOX 8126, MADISON, WI 53708-8126 (608/266-9850)

JULIET WOJACK, Applicant

GUY & ONEIL MFG SERVICES CO, Employer

ACUITY INSURANCE CO, Insurer

WORKER'S COMPENSATION DECISION
Claim No. 2005-014425


An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Worker's Compensation Division of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.

The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the ALJ, and it adopts the findings and order in that decision as its own.

ORDER

The findings and order of the administrative law judge are affirmed.

Dated and mailed June 18, 2009
wojacju . wsd : 175: 9 ND § 10.5

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairperson

Robert Glaser, Commissioner

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The applicant asserts in her petition for commission review the administrative law judge erred in dismissing the applicant's request to reopen the compromise agreement between the parties which was approved by the department order on March 2, 2007. The parties entered into a compromise agreement signed by applicant on February 17, 2007, which provides for payment of medical expenses set forth in the compromise agreement, but any further medical expenses not specifically referenced are the applicant's responsibility, and the applicant waived any right to claim reimbursement for further medical treatment pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 102.42(1). The applicant certified that she had read the compromise agreement, understood the terms of the agreement, and discussed the agreement with her attorney and had received the benefit of her attorney's advise in entering into the settlement agreement.

The applicant acknowledged in the compromise agreement she was aware of the opinions of her treating physicians as to the applicant's medical condition and potential future problems it may pose for the applicant, and she entered into the compromise agreement knowingly and voluntarily without coercion.

The applicant asserts in her petition for commission review that she is dissatisfied with the representation she received from her attorney at the time that she entered into the compromise agreement. However, the fact that the applicant is dissatisfied with her representation does not alter the fact that she entered into the compromise agreement knowingly, and was fully informed of the terms of the agreement. The applicant has not presented any evidence the compromise agreement itself was not entered into properly.

The evidence does not indicate that the compromise agreement was obtained by fraud or mutual mistake, or that important newly discovered evidence has been presented or that the compromise agreement resulted in a gross inequity. The applicant was aware at the time she entered into the compromise agreement that she might need future surgery based upon her treating physician's medical assessment. Compromise agreements will not be reopened absent evidence of gross inequity, important newly discovered evidence, fraud, duress or mutual mistake. Yench v. U.W. Oshkosh (LIRC July 31, 1995). The applicant has failed to present evidence to establish a legal basis for reopening the compromise agreement entered into by the parties. Given the fact that the applicant understood the provisions of the compromise agreement, and was represented by counsel and voluntarily and knowingly entered into the compromise agreement, and in the absence of any legal basis to set aside the compromise agreement, the applicant's request to reopen the compromise agreement must be dismissed.


cc: Attorney Scott Wade


[ Search Decisions ] - [ WC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]


uploaded 2009/06/19