Ms. Carmona, however, said that she continued to experience pain and, on August 13, 2015, her doctor determined that she was not capable of working.

When she did not return to work, her employment was terminated.

Ms. Carmona alleged that she was totally disabled by the work injury. Her employer denied the allegations in her claim petition, and the matter was assigned to a workers' compensation judge ("WCJ").

At the first hearing, Ms. Carmona was the sole witness, and she testified about her work duties, her injury, and her medical treatment. The WCJ then scheduled a second hearing.

At the inception of the second hearing, several months later, the parties informed the WCJ that they had reached a settlement. In exchange for a lump sum payment of $45,000, Ms. Carmona agreed to release her employer from all liability under the workers' compensation law. Specifically, Ms. Carmona released her employer from any liability for medical benefits incurred after May 1, 2014.

The parties filed a petition for approval of the compromise and release ("C&R") agreement, which the WCJ addressed.

When the WCJ asked if Ms. Carmona had reviewed and signed the C&R agreement, she responded in the affirmative to both questions. Ms. Carmona's counsel then questioned her as follows:

Q. And do you understand that if the judge approves this settlement agreement there will be no final decision issued?

A. Correct.

Q. And by that I mean, if the judge approves this settlement agreement, there will be no more hearings about whether you should get ongoing workers' compensation benefits.

A. I understand.

Q. [D]o you understand that if the judge approves this agreement, you will receive $45,000 in full settlement for your injury of February 7, 2014?

A. Correct.

Q. And do you understand that if the judge approves this agreement, the insurance company, the workers' compensation insurance company, will not be required to pay any additional medical bills?

A. That's fine.

Q. [D]o you understand that of that $45,000, $9,000 will be sent to my firm and you will receive a check for $36,000?

A. I understand.

Q. [D]id you and I have approximately 45 minutes to go over this agreement together?

A. Correct.

Q. And do you feel as though you understand the full legal significance of this agreement?

A. Yes, I understand.

Q. And have you had an opportunity to discuss this agreement with your family?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And do you … remember that we discussed that you have 20 days to change your mind?

A. Yes, but I do not want to change my mind.

Q. And so if you don't want to change your mind, we call that waiving the appeal period.

A. Yes.

On September 13, 2016, the WCJ approved the C&R agreement. Crediting Ms. Carmona's testimony, the WCJ found, as fact, that she had demonstrated an understanding of the legal significance of the C&R agreement and had entered into it voluntarily.

On October 26, 2016, Ms. Carmona filed an appeal alleging that her counsel had been deceptive about the terms of the C&R agreement and that she had not been given an opportunity to review the document. After the workers' compensation appeals board rejected her appeal, she went to court.

Among other things, she alleged that she had been directed by her counsel to sign and initial the C&R agreement where indicated; that she had been misled by her lawyer regarding her future medical expenses; that she had not learned that her employer was not responsible for paying them until one month after the C&R agreement had been approved; that her employer had agreed to pay for her future medical treatment; and that she never would have signed the agreement had she known those expenses would not be covered.

The Court's Decision

The court rejected Ms. Carmona's appeal.

In its decision, the court explained that the C&R agreement specifically advised that "[n]o medical bills will be paid for dates of service after 5/1/2014"; that Ms. Carmona "releases all liability for medical benefits incurred after 5/1/2014"; that Ms. Carmona "will set aside $3,600 out of her settlement funds to be used for treatment for the work-related injury that might otherwise be covered by Medicare"; and that Ms. Carmona "feels that this is adequate to cover doctor visits, possibly some physical therapy, possibly some injections or prescriptions medications."

Moreover, the court continued, the record did not support Ms. Carmona's contention that she did not know what was in the C&R agreement and only signed it because of her lawyer's assurances that future medical benefits would be paid. The court pointed out that:

- The WCJ asked Ms. Carmona if she had time to review the C&R agreement before she signed it, and she responded "[y]es";

- Ms. Carmona's counsel asked her "do you understand that if the judge approves this agreement, the insurance company, the workers' compensation insurance company, will not be required to pay any additional medical bills?," and Ms. Carmona replied, "[t]hat's fine";

- Ms. Carmona's counsel asked, "did you and I have approximately 45 minutes to go over this agreement together?," and Ms. Carmona replied, "[c]orrect"; and

- At the conclusion of the hearing, the WCJ asked Ms. Carmona whether she understood all of the questions and if she wanted the C&R agreement approved, and she responded "[y]es, I do."

Ms. Carmona's testimony, the court concluded, indicated that "she understood future medical benefits would not be paid."

The case is Carmona v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, No. 865 C.D. 2017 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Jan. 30, 2018).