Compromise Agreement Failed to Specify 'Related' Injuries
Brobson held that despite the phrasing, "all injuries ... arising therefrom," the agreement did not encompass a shoulder or neck injury as part of the aggravation. He added that there was no indication that the parties agreed to those injuries.
The portion noting the causally related injuries, Brobson said, should be read in conjunction with another part of the agreement in which Hayes agreed that she had sustained no work-related injuries other than the TFCC.
"In order to anticipate a situation such as this, where a claimant thinks or believes that he or she may have additional injuries arising as a consequence of an initial work-related injury, it is incumbent upon such a claimant to reserve a specific right in the compromise and release agreement to add additional causally related injuries," Brobson said.
Friedman, however, said that in DePue the claimant had specifically waived his right to additional injuries he later claimed, and then he sought to alter the definition of the injury.
"Unlike DePue, claimant is not seeking to add a new injury or to correct the described injury, and the parties did not negotiate the omission of an injury in the agreement," Friedman said. "Rather, this case concerns employer's obligation to continue making medical treatment payments for claimaint's identified work-related injury, which employer previously paid and agreed to continue paying in the agreement."
Hayes' attorney, James J. Conaboy of Abrahamsen, Conaboy & Abrahamsen, did not return a call for comment.
Katherine E. Bavoso of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, who represented Amore and Norguard, declined to comment.
(Copies of the 18-page opinion in Amore Restaurant v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, PICS No. 14-0150, are available from Pennsylvania Law Weekly. Please call the Pennsylvania Instant Case Service at 800-276-PICS to order or for information.) •