When we litigate cases in the Pennsylvania workers’ compensation system, we often resolve such matters through a Stipulation of Facts. This agreement of the parties is then approved by a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) and has the same effect as any other decision of a WCJ. This kind of resolution often can resolve disputes quickly and easily, saving the parties the time and effort of unnecessary litigation.
Once a Stipulation of Facts is approved by a WCJ, and the appeal period passes, it can no longer be disturbed. Maybe. A recent decision by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania addressed a situation where it was necessary to set aside a Stipulation of Facts after it was approved by a WCJ.
In VNA of St. Luke’s Home Health/Hospice, Inc. v. Elizabeth Ortiz (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board), the injured worker hurt her left shoulder at work in 2017. The workers’ comp insurer accepted the injury as a “left shoulder strain.” Believing her injury was more significant than that accepted, the injured worker filed a Claim Petition (though it seems more in the nature of a Petition for Review), alleging additional diagnoses. Based largely on the testimony of the injured worker, that there were no issues with the left shoulder before the 2017 work injury, and the medical records stating the same, a Stipulation of Facts was reached, expanding the work injury to include “a left rotator cuff tear and biceps tendon injury.” The Stipulation of Facts was approved by a WCJ in 2019.