VACATION OF AWARD – FRAUD. Where the employee failed to establish the elements of fraud and did not allege any of the other definitions of cause set out in Minn. Stat. § 176.461, the employee’s request to vacate the award on settlement is denied.
Determined by:
David A. Stofferahn, Judge
Manuel J. Cervantes, Judge
Deborah K. Sundquist, Judge
Compensation Judge: James Kohl
Attorneys: Employee Petitioner pro se, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Timothy S. Crom, Jardine, Logan & O’Brien, P.L.L.P., Lake Elmo, Minnesota, for the Respondents.
Petition to vacate award on stipulation denied.
DAVID A. STOFFERAHN, Judge
Javier Sotelo Cantu, the employee, who is pro se for this proceeding, has requested that this court review his case and vacate the Award on Stipulation issued on March 11, 2014. Finding that there is no cause to vacate the stipulation under Minn. Stat. § 176.461, we deny his request.
Javier Sotelo Cantu, the employee, was employed by C.R. Fischer & Sons on May 24, 2013. He was shoveling concrete on that date and tripped over a metal form. He twisted his left knee and fell, landing on his left knee and left forearm. Mr. Sotelo finished working that day, which was a Friday, and the day before the Memorial Day weekend.[1]
Mr. Sotelo returned to work on May 28, 2013, and reported the incident to his employer. He worked from 6:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. when work was stopped by rain. He came back to work the next day but was only able to work for about one hour. Mr. Sotelo has not returned to work since then. Mr. Sotelo received care for his injury at Calhoun Clinic where he received ultrasound therapy. On June 17, 2013, Mr. Sotelo saw Dr. Douglas Becker at Minneapolis Orthopaedics who diagnosed left knee chondromalacia with a patellar contusion and abrasion. A subsequent MRI showed a complete tear of the posterior one-third of the medial meniscus. Dr. Becker performed a surgical repair on December 19, 2013.
The employer and insurer denied responsibility for medical expenses and wage loss. A claim petition was filed on the employee’s behalf in June 2013. During the litigation, Mr. Sotelo’s deposition was taken and he was evaluated by an independent medical examiner for the employer and insurer.
A hearing was scheduled before a compensation judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings for February 7, 2014, to consider Mr. Sotelo’s claims, intervention claims by three health care providers, an intervention claim by a vocational rehabilitation firm, and attorney liens filed by five of Mr. Sotelo’s previous lawyers. A settlement was reached at the hearing that was incorporated into a stipulation for settlement. An Award on Stipulation was issued March 11, 2014, by a compensation judge.
The stipulation contains a number of questions dealing with whether the employee understood the terms and effect of the settlement. The stipulation was signed by an individual who translated the stipulation for Mr. Sotelo. Mr. Sotelo signed the stipulation.
This court received a letter from Mr. Sotelo dated December 28, 2015, in which he made a number of complaints as to how his case had been handled. The letter was considered by this court to be the equivalent of a petition to vacate the stipulation and thereafter this matter was handled pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.461.[2] The employer and insurer filed a response to the petition. Oral argument was held on August 29, 2016. The employee appeared pro se. The employer and insurer were represented by their attorney.
Mr. Sotelo has sent numerous letters to this court in which he claims that he has been the victim of fraud in the handling of his workers’ compensation claim ever since his injury on May 24, 2013. He has attacked the integrity of the employer, the claims adjuster for the insurer, the attorney for the employer and insurer, most of the lawyers that represented him, a translator who was present at the independent medical examination, and the compensation judges who have been involved with the conferences and hearings set in this matter.
As evidence of fraud, Mr. Sotelo refers to a number of pleadings in which an incorrect date of injury is used. He alleges this was done intentionally by one of his attorneys and the attorney for the employer and insurer. He also claims that the opinion of the independent medical examiner was initially favorable to him but was changed after the doctor was given false information. Finally, he claims that the various individuals he names in his letters cooperated in depriving him of his right to benefits. The employee also cites to other actions, not detailed here, by people involved in his case that he characterizes as fraud.
The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals has authority to vacate or set aside an award only when cause has been found. Cause is defined in the statute and is limited to: 1) a mutual mistake of fact; 2) newly discovered evidence; 3) a substantial change in medical condition; or 4) fraud. Minn. Stat. § 176.461. There is no claim by the employee or any evidence that any of the first three definitions apply here. Accordingly, we consider whether the employee has established fraud which would justify setting aside the settlement in this case.
To establish fraud, there must be: 1) a false representation of fact; 2) the representation must deal with a past or present fact; 3) the fact must be susceptible of knowledge; 4) the representing party must know that the fact is false; 5) the representing party must intend for the other party to rely on the representation; 6) the other person must in fact rely on the representation; 7) the misrepresentation must result in actual damages. Johnson v. Univ. Good Samaritan, 75 W.C.D. 427 (W.C.C.A. 2015); Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199, 175 N.W.2d 184 (1970).
Each one of these factors must exist for there to be a legal basis for finding fraud which can vacate a settlement. We will not consider each of the factors in this case because there has been no claim or evidence that Mr. Sotelo relied on any of the actions or statements in settling his case. Shortly after the work injury and continuing to the time of the settlement, Mr. Sotelo raised the same issues of duplicity, false dealings, and misstatements he brings to this court.[3] To put it very plainly, even if there were any evidence of duplicity or misrepresentation (and we are not making a finding on that question), there is no evidence that this alleged fraud resulted in Mr. Sotelo settling his case.
Mr. Sotelo reviewed the stipulation, it was translated for him, he answered questions which indicated that he understood the settlement, and he signed the stipulation.
While Mr. Sotelo is unhappy about the litigation of his claim, we do not have authority to vacate the Award on Stipulation on that basis.
The petition is denied.
[1] There is no record for review by this court. Information was obtained from correspondence and attachments from Mr. Sotelo, as well as exhibits contained in the objection to the petition to vacate filed by the employer and insurer.
[2] Mr. Sotelo’s letter had not been sent to other parties. After an Affidavit of Service was received by this court on February 16, 2016, the application to set aside the award was considered to be effective as of that date.
[3] Mr. Sotelo provided this court with copies of his correspondence with attorneys, the insurance adjuster and other individuals involved with his case. Counsel for the employer and insurer has filed with this court correspondence with Mr. Sotelo and transcripts of telephone messages left by Mr. Sotelo. These contacts began in June 2013 and continued to the December 28, 2015, letter to this court.