Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Lawyer Blog

Under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, a workers’ comp insurance carrier has 21 days to accept or deny a claim. During that period, the workers’ comp insurance carrier is to investigate the claim. This both fair and clear.

The award of attorney fees under the PA Workers’ Compensation Act is supposed to be the rule. Only when the workers’ comp insurance carrier demonstrates that the they had a reasonable basis to deny the claim is an award of fees to be denied. This is how the law sets forth the process. Again, this seems both fair and clear.

Unfortunately, the reality is that unreasonable contest attorney fees are rarely ordered against the workers’ compensation insurance carrier. Even though the PA Workers’ Compensation Act, and the cases from PA Courts, show the workers’ comp insurance carrier must have a basis to deny a claim at the time the decision is made to deny the claim, Workers’ Compensation Judges (WCJs) rarely apply the law this way.

On September 26, 2008, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decided Hansen v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, in which unreasonable contest attorney fees were denied. In this case, at the time the decision was made to deny the claim, the workers’ comp insurance carrier had five progress notes from the injured worker’s doctor. One of these notes made mention of the injured worker’s occupation, in discussing her carpal tunnel syndrome. None of the notes specifically stated the carpal tunnel was work-related. The workers’ comp insurance carrier denied the claim. The WCJ granted the claim, but denied unreasonable contest attorney fees. The injured worker appealed the denial of attorney fees.

On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the decision of the WCJ, denying the unreasonable contest attorney fees was affirmed. The Court reasoned that the workers’ comp insurance carrier had a factual basis to deny the claim since the progress notes were vague, and the injured worker had performed similar work for other employers in the past. The Court apparently had no problem with the fact that the workers’ comp insurance carrier did not request the injured worker attend an Independent Medical Examination (IME) until after a lawyer was retained and litigation was begun.

To us, as lawyers who regularly practice in the area of PA workers’ comp, the Court has now switched the burden to the injured worker to show clear evidence of a work injury to the workers’ comp insurance carrier. Previously, based on the actual language of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, we believed the workers’ comp insurance carrier had a duty to investigate an injury once report of the injury had been received (since this is what the Act specifically states in Section 406.1). It now appears the workers’ compensation insurance carrier has much less of a duty to investigate report of a work injury than is written in the Act.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Case Law Update , Worker Comp Generally , Workers Comp Appeals , Workers Compensation Litigation

Bookmark:

Claimants receiving, or attempting to receive, workers' compensation benefits in PA are required to report receipt of various income. There are three what we call "verification forms," which workers' compensation insurance companies can send to these claimants. If these forms, which were approved by the Pennsylvania Bureau of Workers' Compensation, are not completed by the claimants, and returned to the workers' comp insurance carrier within 30 days, workers' compensation benefits can be stopped.

On the other hand, I recently received a copy of a "Claim Status Report," which was sent by the workers' comp insurance carrier to my client. Some of the questions were similar to those on the forms approved by the Pennsylvania Bureau of Workers' Compensation, but there were other questions which a claimant would have no obligation to answer.

This is just another instance of why every Claimant should have access to an experienced PA workers' comp attorney. Any time something is received by a workers' compensation claimant, there should be a discussion with the attorney. There are so many rights and responsibilities the injured worker should know, that it just makes sense to have someone to watch their back.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: PA Workers Compensation Bureau Update , Worker Comp Generally , Workers Compensation Litigation

Bookmark:

While ankle injuries are common in PA workers’ comp cases, we do not hear about total ankle replacements as much as we hear of total knee replacements or total hip replacements. Unfortunately, sometimes a work injury causes such damage to the ankle, or triggers the development of arthritis in the ankle, such that a total ankle replacement is necessary.

A recent article on the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons‘ website talked of improvements in total ankle replacements. At this point, in the United States, only four types of implants are available for total ankle replacements. Each of these devices consists of only two components. This means there will not be much mobility in the ankle. Of course, the alternative, of fusing the ankle in one position, offers no movement at all.

Outside the United States, total ankle replacements are being done with a device containing three components, allowing greater mobility. FDA approval is being recommended for such devices to be approved for use in the U.S. The article suggests approval for these devices could come as soon as later this year.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Medical News

Bookmark:

Last Thursday and Friday, I attended the annual Fall Meeting of the Pennsylvania Bar Association's Workers' Compensation Section in Hershey, PA. While I hate to be out of the office for the two days, I think it is important to hear, and discuss, things that are happening in the Pennsylvania Courts, as well as with the Pennsylvania Bureau of Workers' Compensation and its Workers' Compensation Judges. In addition to reviewing recent Court Cases, we also discussed the status of the law regarding "retirement" (voluntary withdrawal from the labor market), "Labor Market Surveys" (also known as "Earning Power Assessments"), and the new 6th Edition of the AMA Guides to Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (which is going to be used to for Impairment Rating Evaluations (IRE)). Going to seminars such as this is what allows us to know the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act inside and out, ultimately, to the benefit of our clients. And, since the seminar is in Hershey, the fact chocolate bars are placed on every table never hurts either!

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Attorney News

Bookmark:

As if an injured worker needed another reason to think of surgery as only a last resort, a recent article in Annals of Surgery journal noted that there is a discrepancy in the count of surgical instruments (including sponges) in nearly 13% of surgical procedures. This, of course, does not mean an instrument, or a sponge, is left in a surgical patient in 13% of procedures (that percentage is closer to 0.02%, or one in 5,000). Still, this seems like a staggeringly high percentage to have a miscount.

An article in Amednews.com suggests some solutions to reducing this figure. One is putting bar codes on sponges, which would then be scanned in and out. The count would then be automatic. The article suggests this would add only about $9.00 per surgical case. Another option is placing tiny radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags in the sponges. A wand could then be used to locate missing sponges, either inside a patient, or around the operating room. This would cost an additional $25.00 to $45.00 per surgical procedure.

While certainly no injured worker wants to rush into surgery, sometimes a work injury requires surgical intervention, whether it is a back surgery, a total knee replacement, or any other procedure. The hope is that these new technologies can make surgery safer, and less risky, for every injured worker.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Medical News

Bookmark:

Since we here at Brilliant & Neiman LLC only started publishing our Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Lawyer Blog in April, 2008, we were shocked and honored when we were selected by LexisNexis as one of the top 25 blogs for workers’ compensation (across the U.S.) for 2008.

"These blogsites contain some of the best writing out there on workers' compensation and workplace issues in general," says the LexisNexis Workers' Compensation Law Center. "They contain a wealth of information for the workers' compensation community with timely news items, practical information, expert analysis, tips, frequent postings, and helpful links to other sites. These blogsites also show us how workplace issues interact with politics and culture. Moreover, they demonstrate how bloggers can impact the world of workers' compensation and workplace issues."

We fully intend to continue diligently blogging, to earn the praise we have been given. While national recognition is certainly nice, hopefully, we are achieving our actual goal of educating the injured worker in PA.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Firm News

Bookmark:

One of the most common work injuries we see in PA is to the back, whether it is a herniated or bulging lumbar disc, an aggravation of degenerative disc disease, or a soft tissue injury, such as a strain or sprain. These injuries run from a minor strain, which can be cured by rest and medication, to a herniated disc encroaching on a lumbar nerve root, which can require injections and surgery.

When an injured worker has suffered a herniated lumbar disc, and is having pain or numbness down one or both legs (“radicular symptoms” or “lumbar radiculopathy”), surgery may be discussed. One of the more common procedures to relieve the pressure of a herniated lumbar disc pressing on a nerve root is called a discectomy, where the disc material is simply removed.

A recent article published in the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery examined some previous studies regarding the timing and effectiveness of lumbar discectomies. One of the more interesting findings was that pain relief occurs first after a lumbar discectomy, followed by recovery of motor function (strength), then improvement in sensation. In other words, it is not unusual for the injured worker to continue to have abnormal sensation after surgery. This is an important thing to keep in mind after surgery, so that the injured worker does not feel as if his or her recovery is not going well.

Another interesting finding in the article is that once severe extensor weakness (in this case, the big toe) has begun, lumbar discectomy is not likely to help. In that situation, apparently the nerve has been damaged too badly by the pressure of the herniated disc.

Obviously, whether a patient needs surgery is a determination to be made between the patient and the doctor. Our role as workers’ compensation attorneys in Pennsylvania is to make sure our clients have that decision to make. In other words, we want to make sure the workers’ comp insurance company is covering the treatment the injured worker needs.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Medical News

Bookmark:

In Erisco Industries, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Luvine), decided by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on September 3, 2008, an employer unsuccessfully tried to defend a Claim Petition by saying Claimant failed a drug test and that the drug use led to the work injury. Under the PA Workers’ Compensation Act, intoxication of the injured worker can be an “affirmative defense” by the workers’ compensation insurance company. This means that the burden is on the workers’ comp insurance carrier to prove not only that the injured worker was intoxicated (by drug or alcohol), but that the intoxication caused the injury.

When Mr. Luvine filed his Claim Petition, the workers’ compensation insurance company tried to submit the results of a drug test that they alleged was positive for an illegal substance. Part of the evidence required by the workers’ comp insurance company is to show “chain of custody” regarding the drug test; basically, they must show the sample was properly collected, authenticated and controlled throughout the testing process. This is primarily applicable when the laboratory which tests the sample is not the party who obtained the sample. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) rejected the drug test results because the workers’ compensation insurance carrier failed to prove chain of custody, and the WCJ granted the Claim Petition.

Eventually, Mr. Luvine was released back to work, but his employer refused to offer him a job, since he had (in their eyes) failed the drug test. The workers’ comp insurance carrier filed a Petition to Suspend the workers’ compensation benefits, because they said the reason the injured worker was having wage loss now was that he failed a drug test (and no longer was due to the work injury).

The WCJ granted the Suspension Petition. The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB), however, reversed the decision of the WCJ, because the issue about the drug test had already been decided in the initial Claim Petition. The drug test could no longer be used. When an identical issue, between identical parties, is decided once, it cannot be litigated again. This is known as res judicata or collateral estoppel. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the decision of the WCAB. The workers’ compensation insurance company had its chance to show the drug test was valid and failed. They cannot come back in another litigation and try the issue again.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Case Law Update

Bookmark:

In a developing situation we have discussed here back in May 2008, and then again in July 2008, the Philadelphia Workers' Compensation Hearing Office will be moving to a new location. In our July 2008 blog entry, we told you of the new address of the Philadelphia Workers' Comp Hearing Office (110 North 8th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107). We have now been advised of the date this relocation is scheduled to take place.

We have been told that the move to the new Philadelphia Workers' Compensation Hearing Office will take place the week of November 17, 2008. Hearings will not be held from November 17, 2008, through November 30, 2008. The new office is then scheduled to open for business on December 1, 2008. We are told that any hearings currently scheduled for the Philadelphia Workers' Comp Hearing Office from November 17, 2008 through November 30, 2008, will be cancelled and rescheduled.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: PA Workers Compensation Bureau Update

Bookmark:

One of the most difficult burdens an injured worker in Pennsylvania faces is when he or she is trying to reinstate PA workers’ compensation benefits after a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) has terminated such benefits. Since the granting of a Termination Petition means that the WCJ has found the claimant fully recovered from the work injury, there is a logical problem to later show the same injured has “recurred.”

A recent decision by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, National Fiberstock Corp. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Grahl), shed some light on the actual burden a claimant faces in this situation. In short, the claimant must prove that, after the date the WCJ found there was a full recovery, there was a change (a worsening) of that physical condition. A previous workers’ comp decision by the Court noted that this change must be proven “by precise and credible evidence of a more definite and specific nature than that upon which initial compensation was based.”

Obviously, this is a very difficult burden for the injured worker to reach. But, as the Grahl decision shows, the burden is hardly impossible. In the Grahl case, the injured worker won her case by proving her carpal tunnel syndrome had recurred, using the doctor’s physical examination (which showed atrophy, or shrinking of the muscle) and electrodiagnostic testing (EMG test). It is this type of objective proof of the change in her condition which won the case.

One of the arguments made by the workers’ comp insurance company was that Ms. Grahl’s doctor was not capable of testifying, because he did not see her until after the Termination Petition was granted by the WCJ (so he could not have known her condition at that time). The Court rejected this argument, since the doctor accepted and assumed that claimant was fully recovered when so found by the WCJ.

It is also important to note that this difficult burden flies both ways, as the Court also observed. When a workers’ comp insurance carrier loses a Termination Petition, the workers’ comp insurance company must prove a change in condition to win a later Termination petition. For more on this burden on the workers’ comp insurance carrier, see Lewis v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Giles & Ransome, Inc.)

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Case Law Update , Workers Comp Appeals , Workers Compensation Litigation

Bookmark:

Under the PA Workers’ Comp Act, generally speaking, a worker is not eligible for Pennsylvania workers’ compensation benefits when he or she is commuting to work. Under the law, the worker is not “in the scope of employment” at that time. One exception to this rule is for “traveling employees,” who are usually in the scope and course of their employment while moving from place to place. Obviously, it is advantageous for an injured worker who is hurt commuting to work to be found to be a “traveling employee.”

In a recent case, Jamison v. WCAB (Gallagher Home Health), the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that a home health nurse, who was hurt commuting to her assignment, was a traveling employee, despite the fact she worked for three different employers (sometimes all on the same day). The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) had found that Claimant was not a traveling employee, because she could be working for any of her three employers on any given day. As such, the WCJ denied the Claim Petition.

In reversing the WCJ, the Court found that claimant was a traveling employee with regard to her home health nurse job (the issue of multiple employers was essentially irrelevant). Once found to be a traveling employee, claimant was entitled to a presumption that she was working for her employer at the time she was driving from her home to the patient’s house. To prevail and defeat the claim, the workers’ compensation insurance company would have to prove the claimant abandoned her duties for the employer (for instance, by proving that claimant was actually on her way to work at one of her other jobs). Since the workers’ comp insurance carrier failed to prove this, the WCJ erred in denying workers’ compensation benefits to claimant.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Case Law Update , Worker Comp Generally

Bookmark:

Under the most recent amendments to the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, passed in 1996, once an injured worker in PA has received total disability benefits for 104 weeks, the workers’ comp insurance company can obtain an Impairment Rating Evaluation (IRE). If the work-related injury results in a whole body impairment rating of less than 50% (as almost all injuries do – this is an impossibly high standard), the PA Workers’ Compensation Act says the injured worker is changed from “total” disability status to “partial” disability status.

While this change from total to partial disability status does not change the amount of workers’ compensation benefits the injured worker receives, it does start the clock running regarding how long the benefits can be received. Partial disability benefits in PA are payable for a maximum of 500 weeks.

I go through this background, so that you understand the significance of a recent case decided by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Combine v. WCAB (National Fuel Gas Dist. Co.). In this case, the Court held that a PA workers’ compensation insurance company cannot get an impairment rating until the IRE doctor first determines that a claimant has reached “maximal medical improvement” (MMI). Any obstacle in the path of the insurance carrier is certainly a benefit to claimants.

According to the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, which are used in Pennsylvania to determine impairment ratings in workers’ comp:

“MMI represents a point in time in the recovery process after an injury when further formal medical or surgical intervention cannot be expected to improve the underlying impairment. Therefore, MMI is not predicated on the elimination of symptoms and/or subjective complaints. Also, MMI can be determined if recovery has reached the stage where symptoms can be expected to remain stable with the passage of time, or can be managed with palliative measures that do not alter the underlying impairment substantially, within medical probability…”

When an injured worker has been out of work for 104 weeks, or when an IRE is sought by the workers’ comp insurance company, it is important for the injured worker to discuss his or her specific case with an experienced PA workers’ comp attorney.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Case Law Update

Bookmark: