Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Lawyer Blog

Typically, in Pennsylvania, a workers’ compensation claim has two important time constraints – a period within which the injured worker must provide notice of the work injury to his or her employer (within 120 days), and a period within which a Claim Petition must be filed with the Bureau of Workers Compensation (within three years). Though this is the rule, there are, of course, exceptions.

In Lancaster General Hospital v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Weber-Brown), the Commonwealth Court of PA was faced with a situation where the eye of an injured worker was exposed to herpes simplex virus around 1980. The injured worker gave notice to her employer at that time, but the claim was never formally accepted. In 1985, the injured worker left that job. Through the years, the eye had occasional episodes of infection.

In 2007, the treatments for an infection failed to work, and the injured worker underwent a cornea transplant. At that point, the injured worker was legally blind in that eye, and there was a loss of use of the eye under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act (called a “Specific Loss”).

A Claim Petition was filed and benefits were awarded by a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ). The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) affirmed the decision. The WCJ found that the initial exposure was in 1980, but the actual date of injury was May 16, 2007 (the date the doctor told the injured worker that the damage to the eye required the cornea transplant).

The Commonwealth Court also affirmed. The three year statute of limitations was not lost, because the date of exposure was irrelevant. It is the date of INJURY, said the Court, that matters. Since the eye was not “lost” until May 16, 2007, that was the date the “injury” occurred.

Another interesting aspect of this case is the wage the injured worker was earning at the time of the injury [upon which workers’ comp benefits are based] (known as the “Average Weekly Wage” or AWW). The WCJ used Claimant earnings in 2007 (for her new employer). As a practical matter, the injured worker had not worked for the time-of-injury employer since 1985. The workers’ compensation insurance carrier had argued the AWW should either be what the injured worker earned in 1980 (when she was exposed) or 0, since she had no earnings from that employer in 2007. The Court again denied the arguments of the insurance carrier, noting that the date of INJURY was May 16, 2007, so the AWW was properly based on her actual earnings at that time.

As you can see, there are many complicated issues in the world of PA workers’ comp. That is why our firm limits its practice to just representing injured workers in Pennsylvania workers’ compensation cases. You can learn more about the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act by visiting the FAQ page of our website.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Case Law Update

Bookmark:

When a violation of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act takes place, the proper avenue of relief is to file a Petition for Penalties. This Petition allows a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) to assess a penalty of up to 50% of the benefits at issue. Typically, this is filed by an injured worker against the workers’ comp insurance carrier. Common violations include a delayed payment of wage loss benefits, or a refusal to pay for medical treatment related to the work injury.

Until recently, there was no clear answer as to whether a Petition for Penalties could be filed BY a workers’ compensation insurance carrier AGAINST an injured worker. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has now answered this question in Yespelkis v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pulmonology Associates Inc.). The answer is simply, yes, a Penalty Petition can be filed against a claimant in a workers’ comp case.

However, importantly, while a WCJ can assess a penalty against a workers’ compensation insurance carrier of up to 50% of the benefits at issue, the WCJ is limited to assessing a penalty of a forfeiture of interest against an injured worker. This, the Court said, is consistent with the language of the PA Workers’ Compensation Act.

Interestingly, the Court reversed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) and remanded the case to the WCJ, to determine whether unreasonable contest attorney fees should be assessed against the workers’ comp insurance carrier. Though filing a Petition for Penalties against a claimant is not unreasonable as a matter of law, as with any petition filed by the carrier, if there was not a sufficient basis upon which to file the petition, counsel fees are to be assessed.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Case Law Update

Bookmark:

According to the PhillyBurbs.com, Rothman Institute, a highly respected medical practice based in Philadelphia, PA, has now opened a private hospital in Bensalem, PA. The hospital, the first opened by Rothman Institute, will handle only orthopedic conditions. There are 24 beds in the facility, which also contains medical offices.

More information can be found on the website dedicated to the new hospital, known as The Bucks County Specialty Hospital. While this facility is the first hospital opened by Rothman Institute, the practice does have ten offices throughout the Philadelphia area. The headquarters is located at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Center City Philadelphia.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Medical News

Bookmark:

The Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act allows a workers’ comp insurance carrier to obtain an “Independent Medical Examination” (IME) [Which, of course, is usually anything but “Independent”] at “reasonable” intervals. If an injured worker refuses to attend an ordered IME, a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) can suspend the injured worker’s benefits under Section 314(a). This was usually interpreted to mean “indemnity” or wage loss benefits, as opposed to medical benefits. Whether medical benefits could be suspended was an open question.

In Giant Eagle v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Givner), decided by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania recently, this issue was addressed. The workers’ compensation insurance carrier asked the WCJ to suspend compensation benefits of an injured worker who refused to attend a court-ordered IME. The WCJ issued a decision, granting the request of the insurance carrier, that “compensation benefits” be suspended until the injured worker attends the IME. The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) agreed and affirmed the decision.

On appeal, the workers’ comp insurance carrier asked that medical benefits be suspended along with the indemnity benefits. The insurance carrier argued that the injured worker should be deprived of all compensation for failing to attend the ordered IME. This position was rejected by the Court, which held that medical benefits are separate from indemnity benefits, and are not included in the term “compensation.” The Court found that, in this case, medical benefits are not suspended because the decision of the WCJ cited only “compensation.”

Note though, in the “dicta” (a finding of a court which is not relevant to the “holding” of a case), the Court states that the ability to suspend both indemnity benefits AND medical benefits is within the “sound discretion of the WCJ” and will be upheld unless abuse of discretion is shown. This, the Court said, allows the WCJ to uphold the purpose of the PA Workers’ Compensation Act, which could be frustrated by an injured worker, with benefits already suspended, continuing to receive medical benefits while evading a court-ordered IME.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Case Law Update

Bookmark:

Ordinarily, when an employee is commuting to, or from, work in Pennsylvania, he or she is not in the course of employment. This is known in the PA workers’ comp community as “The Going and Coming Rule.” Thus, if the employee is injured while commuting, usually the injured worker is not entitled to PA workers’ compensation benefits. Like every rule, however, there are exceptions.

Recently, in Leisure Line v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Walker), the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania addressed some of these exceptions. While working as a bus driver for Leisure Line, Mr. Walker commuted from his Delaware home to the bus depot in Coatesville, PA. From the depot, Mr. Walker would drive the bus to and from Atlantic City, NJ. On his way from his home to Coatesville one day, Mr. Walker was injured in a motor vehicle accident.

In asserting that his commute was an exception to the usual rule, and that he was eligible for benefits under the PA Workers’ Compensation Act, Claimant had two main assertions – that he was paid for his travel to Coatesville; and, that his willingness to accept the “Coatesville Run,” an unpopular job assignment, was a “special circumstance” which “furthered his employer’s business.”

The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) agreed that the collective bargaining agreement provided travel expense to Mr. Walker for his commute to Pennsylvania, and that, therefore, Mr. Walker was in the scope and course of his employment at the time of the injury. As such, the WCJ granted the Claim Petition and awarded workers’ comp benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) affirmed the decision of the WCJ, though the WCAB said the reason was because Mr. Walker benefited his employer by accepting the unpopular run, not because of the travel expenses.

Unfortunately for Mr. Walker, the Commonwealth Court of PA disagreed with the reasoning of both the WCJ and the WCAB, and reversed, denying the Claim Petition. As to the travel expenses for getting to the depot in PA, the Court held that since the travel reimbursement was a flat rate (for all drivers), and was not dependent on the time or distance in the commute, and the employer did not control the “means of transportation,” the exception to “The Going and Coming Rule” was not met.

Further, the Court held that accepting an unpopular job location or assignment does not rise to the level of “special circumstances” required for this exception to the rule. The Court felt that having an employee show up at work (even for an unattractive job or at an unappealing job location) is a “universal” circumstance, expected by every employer in Pennsylvania, as opposed to a “special” one.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Case Law Update

Bookmark: