from presenting evidence to prove that she did not understand the C & R agreement. In the present case, WCJ Colohan did consider the evidence presented by Claimant and found that Claimant successfully proved her lack of understanding of the C & R Agreement. In reviewing and reversing WCJ Colohan’s decision, the WCAB did not overturn this finding but, instead, concluded that WCJ Colohan committed legal error in setting aside the C & R Agreement based on unilateral mistake. Now, rather than confine its analysis to a review of WCJ Colohan’s findings and conclusions, the majority essentially rules that WCJ Colohan improperly allowed Claimant to present evidence of her understanding of the C & R Agreement in the first instance. I find this holding difficult to reconcile with Dillard (<HOLDING>). As I stated in my dissent in Stiles, I
recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals recognizing that court has inherent power to control the judicial business before it holding that even after the appeal period has expired a wcj has the inherent power to set aside an approved c  r agree ment under certain circumstances holding the court has the inherent authority to enter an order of confidentiality recognizing that the court has the power to grant leave upon certain conditions