Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Lawyer Blog

As we discussed in a previous blog entry, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania accepted review of the Cinram Manufacturing v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hill) case. This case dealt with how one can change or amend a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP) under the PA Workers’ Compensation Act. Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a decision, affirming the decision of the Commonwealth Court of PA.

The Supreme Court decided that there are two types of changes one can make to a NCP: The change is either a “corrective amendment” (meaning the diagnosis or injury was one present when the work injury took place) or it is a “subsequently-arising” or “consequential” condition (something which happened after the date of injury, such as depression from chronic pain, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS)/Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD), fibromyalgia, overuse syndrome, just for examples).

A Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) can order a change to the NCP in the “corrective amendment” situation, regardless of what type of litigation is pending. However, if the situation is one involving a subsequent or consequential condition, then the claimant must file a Petition to Review. This distinction drawn by the PA Supreme Court represents a change from what was believed to be existing law (Specifically, the cases of Jeanes Hospital v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hess) and Commercial Credit Claims v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Lancaster), both previously decided by the Supreme Court of PA).

In either of these situations, if the claimant wishes to amend or change the Notice of Compensation Payable, the claimant has the burden of proof on the issue.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Case Law Update

Bookmark:

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), also known as Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD), is a debilitating condition we see in Pennsylvania workers’ compensation all too often. This condition, whose sufferers experience tremendous, unrelenting, burning pain, has been known to develop from traumatic injury. Even when a work-related traumatic injury is not too severe, CRPS and RSD can develop. Medical experts remain at a loss to explain why this condition strikes some, but not others.

There is no cure for CRPS or RSD. The best doctors can offer is trying to relieve the terrible pain. As we have discussed in previous blog entries, research is continuing on possible treatment options.

Now, it appears there is a study looking into whether Functional MRI (fMRI) may be of benefit to those inflicted with CRPS or RSD. This treatment may also be of benefit to patients suffering from fibromyalgia, neuralgia, neuropathy and migraine headaches.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Medical News

Bookmark:

Since we limit our practice to representing injured workers' in PA workers' compensation cases, we see frequent situations when an injured worker is treated poorly by the workers' comp insurance carrier. Sometimes, though, the situation seems way beyond common sense and logic. I am currently litigating one of those cases, against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania/Liquor Control Board.

When a work injury in PA is emotional or psychological in nature, the condition must have been caused by an “abnormal working condition” to be eligible for Pennsylvania workers’ comp benefits. In other words, the emotional or psychological condition must be cause by something other than a subjective response to normal working conditions. What determines “normal working conditions” depends on the occupation in question.

Firefighters, police, emergency medical technicians and other first responders are normally expected to face much more stressful conditions than a secretary, accountant, factory worker or construction worker, for example. An event happening to a policeman may be a normal working condition, but if the same event happened to an automobile mechanic, that would be an abnormal working condition. These cases often depend greatly on the facts involved in each case.

I currently represent a clerk who works for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania/Liquor Control Board. The clerk was the victim of an armed robbery, and suffered emotional or psychological injuries as a result of this incident. To my surprise, and disgust, the LCB denied the claim, stating on the Notice of Denial, “Incident is not considered an abnormal working condition for this employer.”

Has society deteriorated to the point that we consider the armed robbery of a retail store to be the normal part of a clerk’s workday? I certainly hope the Workers’ Compensation Judge tells the LCB that society expects more from its members. Armed robbery should never be considered a “normal” part of a reasonable society.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Worker Comp Generally

Bookmark:

Ordinarily, to suspend (or even modify) workers’ compensation benefits to an injured worker in PA, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier must show a change of medical condition and prove work is available within the injured worker’s physical capabilities [Benefits can be suspended for other reasons, but this is the most common].

There are exceptions to this rule, and one of those exceptions was the issue involved in Braz v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB), decided recently by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Claimant decided to move to Portugal after his injury. Upon learning of this fact, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier filed a Petition to Suspend Compensation Benefits, since Claimant had “voluntarily removed himself from the labor market.” Because the workers’ comp insurance company presented no medical evidence, showing a change in medical condition, the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) denied the Petition. On appeal, the WCAB reversed the WCJ, and granted the Petition.

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the WCAB, finding that by permanently relocating out of the Country, Claimant elected to remove himself from the workforce. As such, the Court determined that Claimant was no longer entitled to workers’ comp benefits.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Case Law Update

Bookmark:

To obtain workers’ compensation benefits in PA, the worker must be injured while in the scope and course of his or her employment. Fortunately, PA law does not require that a worker be chained to his or her desk, or work area, the entire day. Pennsylvania law recognizes that “small temporary departures” from work do not remove an employee from being in the scope and course of his or her employment. The degree of latitude given also varies depending on whether one is a “stationary” as opposed to a “traveling” employee.

Recently, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decided Department of Labor & Industry v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Savani), finding a stationary employee not in the scope and course of her employment when she fell and suffered a fractured arm while off the employer’s property on a paid break. The Court found that being off the employer’s property for personal reasons, even though on a paid break, was not “a small temporary departure from work” or an “inconsequential or innocent departure from work.”

These types of cases vary greatly, depending on the facts in each situation. This is why it is important to have your case reviewed by an experienced PA workers’ comp attorney.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Case Law Update

Bookmark: