Case Law Update

August 24, 2026

PA Workers’ Compensation Judge Lacks Authority to Place Preconditions Before Holding Hearing on Compromise & Release Agreement

As most of you know, the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation System is within its own “bubble.” PA workers’ compensation cases are not litigated in the general State court system. Within this system, each Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) has his or her own particular procedures for how he or she handles their caseload. These procedures, however, must remain consistent with the dictates of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act (Act). A recent decision from Commonwealth Court provides an example of when a WCJ’s procedures are at odds with the Act.

In Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania v. Natalie Braas, Corey Grink, and Dean Kenniff (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board), a Petition for Termination and two Petitions for Review of Utilization Review Determination were being litigated before a WCJ. After the evidentiary record was closed, and after the Defendant submitted its brief, the parties reached an agreement to settle the case by Compromise & Release.

To complete the Compromise & Release, the Defendant filed a Petition to Seek Approval of Compromise & Release Agreement. This was filed under the same dispute number as the pending Termination and Utilization Review Petitions. As would be expected, the new petition was assigned to the same WCJ who was presiding over the pending litigation.

July 30, 2026

When Does an Aggravation of a Preexisting Condition End in PA Workers’ Compensation?

by Glenn Neiman

Just because an injured worker had some problems with a body part before a work injury does not preclude a “new injury” in a PA workers’ compensation case. The concept of “aggravation” of a preexisting condition, a “new injury,” as compared to a “recurrence” of that condition, is central enough to the world of PA workers’ compensation that we devote an entire page of our website to discuss this concept. It is a concept we often see in PA workers’ compensation litigation. This issue comes up both at the initial stage of an injury, as well as when there is an allegation that the “aggravation” has ended.

It is with this preface that we discuss a recent unreported decision from the Commonwealth Court of PA, Rodolfo Perez-Martinez v. Dart Container Corporation of Pennsylvania (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board). This case deals with how and when an “aggravation of a preexisting condition” ends for the purposes of PA workers’ comp.

As we have previously discussed on this blog, “unreported” decisions from the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania are of limited value in PA workers’ compensation cases, since they are not “precedential.” That’s a fancy way of saying lower courts (including Workers’ Compensation Judges [WCJs]) are not bound by these unreported decisions. However, unreported decisions are still of some value to us. These decisions can still be “persuasive” to a WCJ. Additionally, these decisions offer insights into the thinking of the Commonwealth Court, so as to help us understand how the Court may rule in a future case.

July 15, 2026

Employee Injured During Lunch Break Entitled to PA Workers’ Compensation Benefits

by Glenn Neiman

A work injury in Pennsylvania is generally compensable if the injured worker is hurt while in the scope and course of his or her employment. Simple, right? The hard part comes with understanding the terms. Like, what constitutes “scope and course” of employment?

For starters, you will not find this term in the PA Workers’ Compensation Act. Instead, this is a concept created by the courts over the past many years. Another concept created by the courts is the “personal comfort doctrine,” which says that an employee does not leave the scope and course of employment while making a brief departure from his or her duties to attend to personal needs, whether that be a cigarette break, food, a drink or a visit to the restroom.

Does one leave the “scope and course” of employment when taking a break? That becomes a magic question, and one that is often seen in litigation. Scope and course cases are very fact-specific, making it difficult to provide clear rules for what is, and what is not, covered.

February 6, 2026

Security Fund Not Subject to Assessment of Counsel Fees

by Glenn Neiman

While many folks know what happens when an Employer violates Pennsylvania law and fails to carry PA workers’ compensation insurance (this is governed by the Uninsured Employers’ Guaranty Fund [UEGF]), few know what happens when a PA workers’ compensation insurance carrier goes bankrupt or ceases to exist. This is where the Security Fund (Fund) steps in and pays the appropriate compensation.

Much like the UEGF, it is well settled that the Fund is not an “insurance company,” and therefore immune from penalties for a violation of the Act. The Fund also cannot be assessed counsel fees for maintaining an unreasonable contest. But, the Fund, like the UEGF, is responsible for paying for wage loss and medical treatment related to a work injury, and for the reimbursement of reasonable costs of litigation incurred by the injured worker in procuring such benefits.

On this blog, we discussed the landmark Lorino case, where the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) can order a payment to an injured worker’s attorney of a counsel fee, even in there was a reasonable contest, and that such a fee is considered a litigation cost.

December 9, 2025

Clarity About Physical/Mental and Mental/Mental Injuries in PA Workers’ Compensation

by Glenn Neiman

Just recently, we discussed a case which addressed mental/mental work injuries in Pennsylvania. This type of injury occurs when a mental stimulus creates a psychic injury. As we reviewed in that posting, these mental/mental injuries have a higher burden in the PA workers’ compensation system – to be compensable, such injuries must result from “abnormal working conditions.”

But, mental/mental is only one of three types of mental injuries we see in PA workers’ comp. We also see physical/mental (where a physical cause leads to a mental injury) and mental/physical (where a mental stimulus causes a physical reaction).

Recently, the Commonwealth Court of PA dealt with both the physical/mental and mental/mental situations in the matter of Russo v. Upper Darby Township (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board).

October 23, 2025

Abnormal Working Conditions Found For First Responder in PA Workers’ Comp Claim

by Glenn Neiman

As we have discussed previously on this blog, physical injuries in Pennsylvania are treated differently than mental ones. Provided that a physical injury was suffered in the scope and course of the job, benefits should be payable. Mental injuries, though, have a different and additional requirement – the injury must have resulted from “abnormal working conditions.”

There should not be much surprise, then, that many cases have dealt with whether a particular fact pattern reaches the standard of “abnormal working conditions.” This determination is very dependent on the exact facts of each case. And, of course, what would be expected in that particular job. What a police office, fire fighter or EMT might expect on a normal day at work is very different from that of an accountant, warehouse worker or a secretary.

Recently, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania dealt with this issue in Ganley v. Upper Darby Township (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board). Here, the injured worker was a firefighter/EMT, who was forced to perform CPR on infants twice in less than two years (with neither infant surviving). As a result of those events, the injured worker suffered post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

August 20, 2025

PA WCJ Has Jurisdiction to Assess Penalties for Nonpayment of Medical Bills Related to Work Injury

by Glenn Neiman

The Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act (Act) is very specific – a workers’ comp insurance carrier is responsible for the payment of all reasonable and necessary medical expenses, which are related to a work injury. As always, the devil is in the details. For example, is the payment of medical bills something which can only be addressed by Fee Review and not by a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)?

As the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania indicated in the recent case of Day-Timers, Inc. v. Rhonda Horton (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board), a WCJ does, indeed, have jurisdiction to address the nonpayment of medical bills. But, initially, let’s examine the confusion.

Under the Act, a PA workers’ compensation insurer has 30 days to either pay a medical bill related to a work injury, or file for Utilization Review (UR), which challenges whether such treatment was reasonable and necessary. If a healthcare provider is not satisfied with the timing or amount of the payment for medical treatment, the provider has the ability to file for Fee Review. This statutory scheme could lead an insurance carrier to argue that an injured worker cannot file a Petition for Penalties, for the nonpayment of a medical bill, since that is a subject solely for Fee Review.

August 12, 2025

Amendment of PA Work-Related Injury Not Barred

by Glenn Neiman

Back in 2008, we discussed the decision of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in the matter of Weney v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Mac Sprinkler Systems, Inc.) [Note that the formatting, with the WCAB listed as the party and the Employer in parentheses, has been reversed since this decision]. This decision terrified attorneys who represent injured workers in Pennsylvania.

Essentially, Weney stood for the proposition that if a work injury is in litigation, and there is an aspect of the injury that was either raised, or should have been raised, the injured worker is barred from trying to bring it up in a subsequent litigation (what the court calls “technical res judicata”). The consequence of barring a condition from being added in the future, even if it was never even litigated in the past, is both a great fear and a terrible injustice to us in the workers’ comp Claimant bar.

However, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania does recognize limits to this concept. This was addressed by the Court in the recent case of Michael N. Lewis, Sr. v. City of Philadelphia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board). The injured worker here was a police officer, who in 2017, sustained injuries to his hand/wrist, low back, chest wall, and thoracic spine while attempting to subdue a burglary suspect. The injury was properly accepted by issuance of a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP).

April 9, 2025

Workers’ Compensation Judge Need Not Set Aside Erroneously Issued Notice of Compensation Payable

by Glenn Neiman

When a party files a document in the world of Pennsylvania workers’ compensation, it means something. As with most areas of the law, parties are bound by what is filed. So, a recent decision by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, addressing an attempt by a workers’ comp insurance carrier to withdraw a Notice of Compensation Payable, is significant.

In City of Philadelphia and PMA Management Corp. v. John Bell (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board), the injured worker was a firefighter for the City of Philadelphia who was diagnosed with colon cancer. Believing his cancer was caused by exposure to toxic fumes and compounds over his 17-year career, the injured worker reported this suspected work injury to his employer, as required under the law.

The City of Philadelphia investigated the allegation and then decided to deny the claim. However, an inexperienced adjuster accidentally caused a Medical-Only Notice of Compensation Payable (MONCP) to be issued, which accepted a work-related injury in the nature of colon cancer.

April 2, 2025

IRE Must Consider All Medical Conditions “Due To” The Work Injury

by Glenn Neiman

As we have addressed in a previous blog post, discussing the case of City of Philadelphia v. Turner (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board), a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) cannot allow the conditions considered by an Impairment Rating Evaluation (IRE) to be only those conditions formally accepted by the workers’ compensation insurance company. Instead, the IRE physician must consider all conditions “due to” the work injury (in his or her medical opinion).

Just to refresh your recollection, an IRE is a tool available to PA workers’ compensation insurance carriers, which allows the status of workers’ comp benefits to be switched from “total” (for which there is no specific time limit) to “partial” (for which there is a maximum of 500 weeks available), if the “whole body impairment” (WBI) of the injured worker is found to be less than 35% (an extremely difficult standard to reach). More detail on the IRE process can be found on our website here.

In a recent case, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania faced this issue again, though in a slightly different context. In the Turner case, the only medical evidence was the IRE physician, who was presented by the workers’ comp insurer. Since that physician did not consider all conditions he believed to be “due to” the work injury, the Court was able to simply affirm the decision of the WCJ, and find that the insurer failed to meet its burden under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act.