Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Lawyer Blog

In a very disturbing decision by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, in Watson v. W.C.A.B. (Special People in Northeast), reported by the Court on May 30, 2008, the injured worker was denied reimbursement of litigation costs, even though the injured worker was successful in part of her Claim Petition.

Claimant filed a Claim Petition three days after her injury (a fact for which the injured worker was chided by the Court, who, seemingly would prefer the injured worker sit and wait with no assurance her claim would ever be accepted by the workers’ comp insurance carrier). An Answer was filed by the workers’ comp insurance carrier admitting Claimant suffered a head contusion in the work injury.

The Workers’ Compensation Judge eventually found the doctors offered by the workers’ comp insurance carrier more credible and denied the wage loss aspect of the Claim Petition (Under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, no wage loss benefits are payable unless there are more than seven days of disability; here the Workers’ Compensation Judge found only three days of disability).

As to the medical benefits, the Workers’ Compensation Judge found medical benefits were payable until the date the workers’ comp insurance carrier’s medical expert said Claimant was fully recovered from her injury. The Workers’ Compensation Judge found, based on the workers’ comp insurance carrier’s medical expert, that the injury was a concussion (not a contusion). Since the Claimant won, at least in part, the Workers’ Compensation Judge awarded Claimant reimbursement of litigation costs.

Both sides appealed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Judge. The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) affirmed the majority of the decision, but reversed the award of litigation costs.

Under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, Section 440(a), litigation costs are to be reimbursed by the workers’ comp insurance carrier when Claimant is successful in the litigation “in whole or in part.”

The Commonwealth Court of PA affirmed the decision of the WCAB. The Court found no appreciable difference between a head contusion and a concussion in this case (an opinion, I doubt, would be shared by anyone who has suffered a concussion). Indeed, since the Court found there would be no medical treatment needed for one that was not done for the other in this case, “Claimant does not assert that the injury description resulted in any financial benefit to her.” I do not recall any requirement in the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act that medical benefits lead to a “financial benefit” to the injured worker. This seems to be just another example of the battle faced by the injured worker in PA.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Workers Comp Appeals , Workers Compensation Litigation

Bookmark:

Many injured workers in Pennsylvania know not to sign a document they receive from the workers’ compensation insurance company without checking first with an experienced workers’ compensation attorney. Unfortunately, few injured workers are aware that some documents exist in the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act which can cause workers’ comp benefits to be reduced, or stopped, even if the documents are NOT signed by the injured worker.

When an injured worker returns to work in PA, he or she is still entitled to workers’ compensation benefits if there is still a loss in earnings (maybe the modified job pays less per hour, or offers fewer hours). The workers’ compensation insurance company must take some action if it wishes to reduce, or stop, weekly compensation benefits. In the old days, the workers’ compensation insurance company would have to file a Petition for Modification or Suspension, and litigate the issue. This is no longer the case.

These days, the workers’ compensation insurance company can simply file a Notification of Modification or Suspension, which contains an affidavit that the injured worker has returned to work, whether at pre-injury or reduced wages. If the Notification of Modification or Suspension is not “challenged” (appealed) by the injured worker, the Notification of Modification or Suspension has the same legal effect as if the injured worker signed a Supplemental Agreement, agreeing that the injured worker did return to work at those wages.

The challenge of the Notification of Modification or Suspension must be filed by the injured worker within 20 days of when the injured worker received the Notification of Modification or Suspension. According to a recent case in the Commonwealth Court of PA, Wawa v. W.C.A.B. (Seltzer), the date the injured worker received the Notification of Modification or Suspension is a finding of fact to be made by the Workers’ Compensation Judge (and will not be disturbed on appeal, if supported by “substantial evidence”).

This is yet another danger to the injured worker, who may be unaware that valuable rights can be lost simply by not taking action. It is very important that the injured worker be fully informed of the potential pitfalls contained within the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

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

Bookmark:

In an earlier blog entry, I explained the process of workers’ compensation appeals in Pennsylvania. Since the Supreme Court of PA can accept only those appeals it wishes, very few workers’ compensation cases are heard by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Unfortunately, on May 19, 2008, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania announced that they have accepted the appeal in Cinram Manufacturing, Inc. v. W.C.A.B. (Hill), which had been decided last year by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. I say “unfortunately” because the decision had been favorable to injured workers, and seemed based on common sense.

In making its decision, the Commonwealth Court of PA found that a Workers’ Compensation Judge in Pennsylvania had the power to add to the description of injury, even if the injured worker did not file a Petition to Review the Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). For example, in this case, a Petition for Termination was the only petition filed.

Previous decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in years’ past, suggested that a Petition to Review the NCP would have to be filed for the Workers’ Compensation Judge to be able to amend the description of injury. On the other hand, many cases have also noted that the form of the pleadings is not fatal in PA workers’ comp, and that a Workers’ Compensation Judge is usually able to decide the case based on the evidence presented, generally without regard to the petitions actually pending.

Creating more strict requirements only makes PA workers’ compensation more dangerous for the unwary. We will keep you posted on this, and other decisions, as they happen.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

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

Bookmark:

On May 14, 2008, the Workers’ Compensation Section of the Philadelphia Bar Association received an e-mail that all pleadings (including briefs and stipulations resolving disputes between parties) addressed to Workers’ Compensation Judge Aida Louise Harris, in the Northeast Philadelphia Workers’ Compensation Office must be submitted on CD in Microsoft Word format, 12 point font.

Though this new procedure was revoked in a later e-mail on May 19, 2008, this is clearly the direction that office is taking. Indeed, the e-mail revoking the new procedure specifically stated that the procedure was being revoked only because “due to technological issues, the electronic submission initiative cannot be implemented as yet.”

Other courts, in recent years, have been moving to electronic submissions, so this is not a surprising development. We will, of course, keep you up to date if this new procedure does go into effect. Also, be aware that you can review the procedures of any participating Workers' Comp Judge at the website of the Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: PA Workers Compensation Bureau Update , Workers Compensation Litigation

Bookmark:

A common fear with an injured worker is the impact of his or her employer, or the workers’ compensation insurance carrier, filing for bankruptcy. In Pennsylvania, an injured worker need not be concerned with such a development. Whether it is the bankruptcy of the employer, or the workers’ compensation insurance carrier, in PA, workers’ compensation benefits should not be disturbed.

When a party files for bankruptcy, which is governed by Federal law, the main purpose (or at least the immediate purpose) is the protection of the “automatic stay,” provided by Section 362(a)(1) of the Federal Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §362(a)(1). The “automatic stay” causes any collections efforts (including any litigation) to be stopped. A creditor usually must apply for permission with the bankruptcy court, in order to have the stay lifted. Only if the request is granted, and the stay is lifted, can the creditor take any action on the debt (including litigation). The automatic stay allows payments from the bankrupt party to stop. This would, of course, be catastrophic for an injured worker who relies on Pennsylvania workers’ comp benefits.

Workers’ compensation laws are State laws, as opposed to Federal law, such as bankruptcy. One of the exceptions to the “automatic stay” is an exercise of a State’s “police powers,” under 11 U.S.C. §362(b)(4). The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has recently confirmed that “the administration of worker’s compensation claims by the State … is a valid exercise of a governmental unit’s regulatory power, and is exempt from the automatic stay.” Pope & Talbot v. W.C.A.B. (Pawlowski), decided on May 21, 2008. Therefore, workers’ compensation benefits in PA are usually to be paid regardless of the filing of bankruptcy. Similarly, litigation in workers’ compensation cases in Pennsylvania may continue, despite the bankruptcy filing.

In years past, if an employer in PA failed to carry Pennsylvania workers’ compensation insurance (which is a crime in Pennsylvania), and that employer filed for bankruptcy, the injured worker may have been left out in the cold. Fortunately, as part of Act 147, passed by the Pennsylvania Legislature in 2006, the Uninsured Employers’ Guaranty Fund (UEGF) was created. The UEGF, funded by payments from all workers’ comp insurance companies in PA, steps in when there is a claim against an uninsured employer (regardless of whether that employer is bankrupt). This fund provides a measure of security for the injured worker who, unknown to the worker, is employed by a company who fails to carry the required workers’ comp insurance.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Case Law Update , Wage Loss Benefits , Worker Comp Generally , Workers Compensation Litigation

Bookmark:

On November 9, 2006, the most recent amendment to the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, known as Act 147 of 2006, was signed into law. Several of the provisions of Act 147 were designed to quicken the litigation process in PA workers’ comp. One of those provisions created what is known as “Mandatory Mediation.”

Mediation, generally speaking, is a process where an independent person meets with the parties to a dispute and helps the parties reach a resolution to their quarrel. This is a process used in all types of litigation, and even in disputes outside of litigation. Usually, this is a very informal process. The mediator will meet with the parties separate and together, working to try and bring them together on common ground. There is no court reporter present, and things said in mediation are not admissible in the litigation (encouraging the parties to be honest about the strengths and weaknesses of their position).

Mediation has been used in Pennsylvania workers’ compensation matters as long as I can recall. In the past, mediation only happened in PA workers’ comp when the parties so requested. The process was entirely voluntary, and did not occur that often.

Act 147 made mediation mandatory, in every case, unless the Workers’ Compensation Judge felt that mediation would be futile. As a result, we are seeing much more mediation in Pennsylvania workers’ comp than in years past. In turn, the increased mediation seems to have led to workers’ compensation settlements becoming more frequent in PA.

Mandatory mediation is not binding. That means that if a settlement cannot be agreed upon by all parties, then there is no settlement. Usually, there is little to lose by engaging in mediation. If a settlement cannot be reached, nothing is lost other than the time spent by the parties (and even then, some issues in the litigation may get resolved, narrowing the disputes which remain).

As with Act 147 generally, mandatory mediation appears to be a beneficial change to the PA Workers’ Compensation Act for the injured worker. I am proud to have participated in meetings working on this litigation, with the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association (now known as Pennsylvania Association for Justice). As a PA workers’ comp attorney, I salute the hard work of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice in having such fair legislation passed.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

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

Bookmark:

Experienced Pennsylvania workers’ compensation attorneys frequently are involved in cases where an injured worker, no longer able to perform his or her pre-injury job, is referred to other jobs in the community by a vocational counselor, at the request of the workers’ compensation insurance carrier. As lawyers who limit our practice to PA workers’ comp, we love to see cases reduce the power of the workers’ compensation insurance carriers to abuse this process.

Recently, on May 12, 2008, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decided PA Department of Corrections v. WCAB (Zvara). In this case, the claimant, who does not drive, was referred to five jobs, which were said by the workers’ compensation insurance carrier to be within the physical limitations of claimant. Claimant did not apply for any of the jobs (Often, the failure to apply for any of the referred jobs is nearly certain to cause the case to be lost). In this situation, however, the Court found that the workers’ compensation insurance carrier did not meet its burden of proof. Specifically, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier failed to prove public transportation was compatible with the hours of the offered jobs, or that the prospective employers would modify the hours of the jobs to accommodate the schedules of public transportation. The mere fact that the referred jobs were accessible by public transportation, without more, was not enough. Since the workers’ compensation insurance carrier did not meet its burden of showing jobs “available” to the claimant, the burden never shifted to claimant, to prove he or she applied for each job in good faith. As such, the Petition for Modification was denied.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

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

Bookmark:

An injured worker in Pennsylvania is generally entitled to be compensated for his or her lost wages (called “indemnity” benefits), and have medical expenses related to the work injury paid. When an injured worker loses the use of certain parts of the body, payment can also be obtained (this is called “specific loss” benefits). Included in “specific loss” benefits is compensation for scarring, or “disfigurement,” on the head, face or neck.

Under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, in Section 306(c), there is a list of body parts, and how many weeks of workers’ compensation benefits an injured worker would receive for the loss of each. For example, the loss of a hand leads to a payment of 335 weeks of workers’ compensation benefits. A foot is 250 weeks. Other amounts are listed for forearm, leg, lower leg, eye and more. Payment for fingers depends upon which finger is involved (from 100 weeks for a thumb to 28 weeks for the little finger). The Act also includes some period of additional compensation, called a “healing period.” For example, the lost hand adds a healing period of 20 weeks and the lost foot leads to an additional 25 weeks. Compensation for scarring on the head, face or neck is completely within the discretion of the Workers’ Compensation Judge, who can award from zero to 275 weeks, depending on how disfiguring the scarring is felt to be.

To obtain specific loss benefits in PA workers’ compensation, an injured worker must show that the part of the body at issue has been “permanently” lost “for all practical intents and purposes.” The quoted portions above are usually where disputes exist, often requiring the decision of a Workers’ Compensation Judge.

While the testimony of the injured worker is important in determining whether there is a loss of use “for all practical intents and purposes,” according to a recent case decided by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, medical evidence must also be presented in support of the injured worker. In Jacobi v. W.C.A.B., decided by the Court on February 12, 2008, the claimant testified about how he is limited in using his right middle finger (which had been caught in a freight door and subject to three surgeries, the last of which involved the placement of a screw), but the claimant did not present any medical evidence which stated that the use of the finger has been lost “for all practical intents and purposes.” The Court reversed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Judge, who had awarded benefits to the claimant.

Posted by Glenn Neiman | Permalink | Email This Post

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

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:

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: