The issue in contest is the denial of the claimant’s request to reopen a stipulation, which encompassed a number of separate injuries. The claimant explained that he did not have the capacity (partially due to medications he was taking) to attend his settlement on April 13 th , 2012. Additionally, the claimant argued that the three grounds to reopen a stipulation under 31-315 were applicable. Commissioner Vargas found that, not only was the evidence supporting his absence insufficient, but the grounds on which to reopen were inapplicable. Upon the finding and dismissal, the claimant filed a petition for review. However, this motion was not filed within the allotted 20 day period after the commissioner’s decision, making the jurisdiction of the tribunal in question, inadequate. Even if the claimant had filed in a timely fashion, a petition to review cannot be enlisted as a method to contest factual findings, previously found. The precedent in Macon v. Colt’s Manufacturing is dispositive of these issues. This emphasizes the difficulty to reopen a stipulation or a voluntary agreement once its been entered into.