Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Lawyer Blog

Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD), also known as Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) is a horrible condition we see all too often resulting from work injuries. This condition can develop from a traumatic work injury, even what previously seemed to be a relatively minor one. Scientists still do not seem to know why RSD or CRPS develops.

The hallmark symptom of RSD or CRPS is unrelenting, often burning, pain. This character of pain, called “neuropathic” pain, is caused by irritation of the nerves in the affected area. Frequently, there are also changes in the skin or fingernails of the area as well (known as “trophic” changes). Sadly, there is no cure for RSD or CRPS, and doctors simply try to manage the symptoms of the patient as best they can.

Research is continuing in this area, and there are some promising things on the horizon. A recent study, led by local RSD/CRPS specialist Dr. Robert Schwartzman, found that the drug ketamine, given in an anesthetic dosage, may relieve pain in RSD/CRPS patients who have failed with other treatments. Administration of ketamine while the patient is placed in a five-day coma has been successfully performed in other countries, but has not been approved as yet in the United States. Obviously, in the workers’ comp setting, treatment not approved by the FDA probably does not need to be paid for by the PA workers’ compensation insurance carrier.

An incurable, debilitating, condition like RSD/CRPS raises many issues in Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation. Unfortunately, the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act was designed for injuries which will eventually heal. The system is not properly prepared to deal with a lifelong debilitating condition like RSD/CRPS, which makes the selection of lawyers experienced in PA workers’ compensation particularly important.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Medical News

Bookmark:

Even when an injured worker receives a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) in Pennsylvania, the case is not over. Either side may appeal the decision to the next level, the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB). Such an appeal must be filed within 20 days of the decision of the WCJ.

An appeal must allege that the Workers’ Compensation Judge committed an “error of law” or that the decision issued by the Judge is not a “reasoned decision.” Simply disagreeing with the decision is not a proper basis of appeal. An appeal cannot challenge who the Judge believed (called “determination of credibility”), since this is solely at the discretion of the Judge.

The WCAB schedules oral argument at various locations throughout the year. At the time oral argument is made, the WCAB also expects a brief to be filed by the appealing party (though a party can request additional time to submit a brief).

Once the decision of the WCAB is made, the losing party can then appeal to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. This appeal must be filed within 30 days of the WCAB decision. Oral argument is rarely done at this level and the matter is usually decided just on the written arguments filed by the parties.

The decision of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania can be appealed to the Supreme Court of PA, though the Supreme Court only hears cases it chooses. The appealing party files a petition for “Allocatur” with the Supreme Court of PA, which the Court then grants or denies. If the Court grants allocatur, it accepts the appeal and will decide the issue. If the Court denies allocatur, the decision of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania becomes final.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Worker Comp Generally , Workers Comp Appeals , Workers Compensation Litigation

Bookmark:

One of the tools a workers’ compensation insurance company has in PA to reduce, or “modify,” workers’ compensation benefits is the Labor Market Survey (LMS) (Also called “Earning Power Assessment” (EPS)). This is used when the injured worker has physical limitations which prevent a return to the injured worker’s previous occupation.

As you can see by looking at Section 123.301 in the Regulations issued by the Pennsylvania Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, before an Employer can resort to using an LMS, the Employer must demonstrate that there is no job available with the Employer within the physical limitations of the injured worker . . . or maybe not.

Recently, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decided the matter of Rosenberg v. W.C.A.B. (Pike County), which dealt with this issue. The Court held, in a narrow 4-3 decision, however, that an Employer only had to address this issue if the injured worker offered evidence (which could just be testimony of the injured worker) that a job was indeed available with the Employer. Once that evidence was presented, then the Employer had the burden of proof to show no such job existed.

As the three Judges who dissented pointed out, this logic is blind to the fact that it is much easier for the Employer to show an absence of a suitable job than it is for an injured worker to show a job existed. One must wonder how an injured worker would know what is happening within the Human Resources department of their Employer (while the injured worker is home recovering from an injury yet).

This seems yet another case where the injured worker in PA gets the short end of the straw. Unfortunately, such a result seems to be happening all too frequently.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Case Law Update , Vocational Process , Workers Compensation Litigation

Bookmark:

Recently, Hazleton, Pennsylvania, was in the news for its efforts to crack down on undocumented, illegal aliens. We also are hearing the Presidential candidates speak about their views on how to handle these people. It might make one wonder how an undocumented, illegal worker is treated under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act.
The short answer is that an undocumented, illegal worker is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits in PA. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided The Reinforced Earth Company v. W.C.A.B. (Astudillo) in 2002, answering this question with certainty.

Since that time, however, the Courts in PA have not been so kind to undocumented workers. While access to medical treatment for the work injury has continued undisturbed, the illegal worker’s right to wage loss (also known as “indemnity”) benefits has been reduced. As long as the undocumented worker is totally disabled, he or she is entitled to both medical and indemnity benefits. On the other hand, once the illegal alien worker is capable of ANY type of employment, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier can file a petition before a Workers’ Compensation Judge to have the indemnity benefits stopped (again, the medical benefits for the work injury would still continue).

In a typical workers’ comp case in Pennsylvania, if the workers’ compensation insurance carrier wants to reduce or stop (“modify” or “suspend”) indemnity benefits, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier must prove there is work available within the physical restrictions of the injured worker. When the injured worker is an undocumented alien, however, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier does not have to show that any work is available. This was made clear by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in Morris Painting, Inc. v. WCAB (Piotrowski), decided in 2003.

Indeed, even an illegal alien who has returned to work, at a loss in earnings, is not entitled to any indemnity benefits. The Commonwealth Court of PA decided Jose Mora v. WCAB (DDP Contracting Co., Inc) in 2004. In that decision, the Court held that even actual earnings of an illegal alien cannot be the basis for partial disability benefits because the injured worker in that case is not legally able to work in the United States.

As with the likely result on the mounting illegal alien issue at the National level, a compromise has developed with regard to PA workers’ comp benefits available to an injured undocumented illegal worker.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Worker Comp Generally

Bookmark:

Pennsylvania workers’ compensation law is like no other State. I mean no disrespect by that statement; truly, PA workers comp is unique, like in every other State. Unlike Federal laws which may be of concern to an injured worker, such as Social Security Disability (SSD) or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which apply to any injured worker in the United States, each State has its own set of workers’ compensation laws.

The difference between workers’ comp laws from State to State is tremendous. For instance, in Pennsylvania, once an injured worker is receiving workers’ compensation benefits, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier usually must get the permission of a Workers’ Compensation Judge to stop the benefits. In some other States, the workers’ compensation insurance company can simply stop paying benefits on its own. Also, in PA, the Employer, or workers’ compensation insurance company, can only control treatment, at most, for the first 90 days. After that time, if not before, an injured worker in Pennsylvania can select his or her own doctor.

On the down side, in PA, once an injured worker returns to work with no loss in wages, there is usually no more money due the injured worker. There is no compensation for the injured worker who can no longer take part in pleasurable activities (as long as the injured worker can do his or her job, according to PA law, no compensation is payable). In some other States, an injured worker who returns to work can still get money for his “percentage of impairment.”

So, while you are looking at the information out there, including on this Blog and on the Brilliant & Neiman LLC website, please keep in mind that every State has different workers’ comp laws. If your case is not a Pennsylvania workers’ compensation case, the information here may or may not apply to you. We would strongly recommend you talk to an attorney licensed in the State in which you were injured. Follow this link for helpful information regarding workers' compensation laws in other States.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Worker Comp Generally

Bookmark:

There are many things in life that are not fair. At least one of those things rears its ugly head in Pennsylvania workers’ comp. Unless an employee has a contract, or is a member of a union, there is very little protection for the employee from being fired from his or her job while out of work on workers’ compensation in PA. While an employee cannot legally be fired in Pennsylvania for pursuing a workers’ compensation claim [Shick v. Shirey, 716 A.2d 1231 (Pa. 1998)], it is often difficult to prove the reason for the termination is the pursuit of a workers’ comp case (as opposed to just the absenteeism of the injured worker). Please note, also, that workers’ compensation benefits in PA continue regardless of whether a totally disabled injured worker has been terminated from his or her job or not.

Federal laws do offer some protections for the injured worker caught in this position. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) can provide some job protection for a period of time. If an injured worker is terminated from his or her job, COBRA may allow the private health insurance coverage to continue, with the injured worker able to assume the payments at the group rate used by his or her employer.

Unfortunately, though, there is often very little that we, as Pennsylvania workers’ compensation attorneys, can do to protect our clients from being terminated from their jobs while they are disabled from work and receiving workers’ compensation benefits.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Worker Comp Generally

Bookmark:

Typically, in Pennsylvania, workers’ compensation hearings are held in the County in which the injured worker lives. Many Counties in PA have a single hearing location (Allentown for Lehigh County, Reading for Berks County, Easton for Northampton County), while others have multiple locations. For instance, in Montgomery County, hearings are divided between hearing offices in Malvern and Dresher. Similarly, in Bucks County, there are hearing offices in Bristol and Doylestown.

Another County with multiple locations is Philadelphia County, where there is an office in Northeast Philadelphia and one in Center City Philadelphia. The Center City hearing office has been in the State Office Building at Broad and Spring Garden Streets for as long as I can remember (and I have been handling workers’ compensation cases in PA for over 15 years). As you may have heard, however, the State Office Building has been sold and the Philadelphia workers’ compensation hearing office will be moving.

Though details are hard to come by, we believe the new Philadelphia workers comp office will be located at 8th and Arch Streets in Center City Philadelphia. The move is expected to take place by the end of 2008. We will certainly be updating this information as we learn more!

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: PA Workers Compensation Bureau Update

Bookmark:

To answer an often asked question, in Pennsylvania, there is no limit to how long an injured worker can receive total disability workers’ compensation benefits. However, as a practical matter, it is difficult to receive total disability benefits in PA for more than two years. After an injured worker in Pennsylvania has received total disability benefits for 104 weeks, the workers’ compensation insurance company can request the injured worker attend an Impairment Rating Evaluation (IRE).

An IRE is somewhat different than an Independent Medical Examination (IME), as the doctor who performs an IRE is selected by the Pennsylvania Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (the workers’ compensation insurance carrier selects the doctor in an IME). The doctor who performs the IRE will examine the injured worker and review records. Subsequently, the doctor will decide what percentage the injured worker is impaired from the work injury. This percentage is determined by guidelines developed by the American Medical Association.

If the injured worker is found to be less than 50% impaired by the work injury, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier may be able to have the status of the disability changed from “total” to “partial.” While this change does not effect the amount of workers’ compensation benefits the injured worker receives, it does put a time limit on how long the benefits can be received. An injured worker in PA can only receive partial disability benefits for a maximum of 500 weeks.

You will notice that I said the workers’ compensation insurance company “may” be able to change the status. If the workers’ compensation insurance carrier requests the IRE within 60 days of when the injured worker has received 104 weeks of total disability, the workers’ compensation insurance company need only file a Change of Status form and the status of benefits automatically changes from total to partial.

However, the situation is very different if the workers’ compensation insurance carrier requests the IRE after the 60 day period (after the 104 weeks of total disability). In that case, according to a recent decision by The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, apparently, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier must actually prove some form of job availability to have the status changed to partial. This decision, in the case of Diehl v. W.C.A.B. (IA Construction), filed on April 28, 2008, makes the question of when the IRE request was made very important.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Case Law Update , Workers Compensation Litigation

Bookmark:

One of the more commonly misunderstood aspects in the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act is the status of medical treatment within the first 90 days of the injury. Too often, an injured worker will be told by his or her employer that they must treat with a specific company doctor. This is not completely true, according to the Pennsylvania Bureau of Workers' Compensation.

If the employer follows the requirements of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, and properly posts a listing of healthcare providers (not necessarily doctors, more on that later), the employer is only required to pay for treatment with those listed healthcare providers for the first 90 days of treatment after a work injury.

To have the listing of healthcare providers (known as a “panel posting”) be “proper,” the list must meet certain requirements. For one thing, there must be at least six healthcare providers on the list, of which at least three must be doctors. The names, addresses, telephone numbers and specialties of each healthcare provider must be stated as well. The healthcare providers on the list must be “geographically accessible.” The list must be prominently displayed, and the employer must have the worker sign a document acknowledging that the worker saw the list at the time the worker is hired, after a change is made on the list, and after the injury.

If the listing is “proper” and the employer has followed the requirements listed above, then the workers’ compensation insurance carrier is only required to pay for treatment with those listed healthcare providers for the first 90 days of treatment. The injured worker is free to choose any healthcare provider on the panel (the employer cannot direct the injured worker to any specific healthcare provider). If the injured worker needs treatment from a specialty which is not represented on the listing, the injured worker is free to choose his or her own healthcare provider in that specialty, and the workers’ compensation insurance carrier is responsible for payment (provided the treatment is reasonable, necessary and related to the work injury).

It is also important to note that, even if the employer has a properly posted listing, the only penalty to the injured worker for going to a doctor not on the listing is that the workers’ compensation insurance carrier will not be required to pay for that treatment. There may be situations where the injured worker finds seeing his or her own physician, perhaps just a single time, worth paying the cost of the visit.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Medical Benefits

Bookmark:

Though the reasons for the dramatic increase are not clear, it appears total knee replacements and total hip replacements are much more frequent now than in the past. According to an article on the American Medical Association website, total knee replacements increased 63% from just 1997 to 2004. Over that some period, total hip replacements were up 48%.

One of the potential reasons for the striking increase is the trend of the population to generally be both older and heavier, putting greater strain on these joints. Better technology in performing the total joint replacements has also been said to have increased the frequency with which the procedures are recommended by doctors.

From the perspective of patients, the total knee replacement or total hip replacement may appear to be a safer long-term way to treat their chronic pain than continued use of medications. This is especially true given the controversy, and apparent side effects, of the class of medications including Vioxx, Bextra and Celebrex, known as Cox-2 Inhibitors. An increase in the amount of advertising by the manufacturers of the artificial joints may also make patients more interested in having the total joint replacements done

While not dealing specifically with workers’ compensation, this information is still important to injured workers. Decisions on whether to get a total knee replacement, or total hip replacement, are common in work injury cases.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Medical News

Bookmark:

Glenn C. Neiman, one of the partners at Brilliant & Neiman LLC enjoys educating people, including other attorneys who do not limit their practice to workers’ compensation, about the complicated world of workers’ compensation in Pennsylvania. Recently, the National Business Institute invited Mr. Neiman to be a speaker at a workers’ compensation seminar in Allentown, PA, but the timing did not work out. Luckily, Mr. Neiman was able to be a speaker at a workers’ compensation seminar for the Bucks County Bar Association last year. Mr. Neiman has had the pleasure of speaking at seminars for both of these organizations in years past.

From time to time, Brilliant & Neiman holds free seminars on Pennsylvania workers’ comp issues for the general public throughout Southeastern PA. We think it is important for injured workers, especially those without attorneys, to know their rights. If you are interested in attending one of these free seminars, please contact us for information about our next seminar in your area.

Posted by Brilliant & Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorney News

Bookmark:

An injured worker in PA can settle both the wage loss and medical parts of his or her case by entering into a Compromise & Release Agreement. This is something which can only be done when both the injured worker and the workers' comp insurance company agree to settle the case. Neither side can force the other to settle a case. Once the parties agree to the terms of a settlement, a Compromise & Release Agreement must be prepared, detailing the terms of the settlement. Then, before the settlement is final, a hearing must be held before a Workers’ Compensation Judge, who must be satisfied that the injured worker understands the terms and conditions of the settlement.

Recently, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decided that a Compromise & Release Agreement could not be approved because the injured worker had died before a hearing to approve the settlement could be accomplished. This case, Miller v. W.C.A.B. (Electrolux), was decided on January 4, 2008.

Understand that settling a workers’ compensation case in Pennsylvania is a very complicated process. It is very important that you have an experienced workers’ compensation lawyer working for you, to make sure that you receive the maximum recovery possible, and that your rights be properly protected.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Case Law Update

Bookmark: