What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant testified she was undergoing mental health crisis when signing C&R, did not understand terms, and did not receive court-ordered mental health evaluation
Favours Applicant prevailed
Established good cause to set aside OACR based on duress/undue influence
From the decision · page 2In her petition, applicant requested that the Appeals Board set aside the OACR because, on the date that she signed the C&R, she was undergoing a mental health crisis, did not understand the terms of the settlement agreement, and did not receive the mental health evaluation ordered by the WCJ. Applicant also claimed that her
WCJ found applicant's uncontradicted testimony credible regarding settlement secured by duress or undue influence
Favours Applicant prevailed
WCJ's credibility findings entitled to great weight; no contrary evidence of considerable substantiality
From the decision · page 4After trial, the WCJ issued an F&O setting aside the OACR. In the F&O, the WCJ found that applicant, through her uncontradicted testimony, established “good cause” to set aside the OACR on the grounds that the settlement was secured by duress or undue influence. (F&O, p.
Psychiatric reports documented applicant's severe distress including suicidal ideations, major depression, and need for ongoing treatment
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported finding that applicant was in mental health crisis at time of settlement despite predating settlement by several months
From the decision · page 8For instance, in the reports issued by Doctors Linz and Diebel in July and August 2018, the psychiatrists documented applicant’s severe psychiatric distress, noting, among other things, that applicant reported “suicidal ideations,” that she had “[p]ain disorder with related psychological factors, major depression associated with work related