Case Law Update

August 8, 2008

Expert Medical Evidence Necessary to Prove Disability in PA Workers’ Comp

A recent decision by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Albert Einstein Healthcare v. W.C.A.B. (Stanford), held that an injured worker seeking Pennsylvania workers’ compensation benefits must present expert medical evidence to prove disability. The testimony of the injured worker alone, unless the injury and the disability are obviously connected, will not be enough.

In this case, the claimant testified that she stopped working, due to the work injury, on October 21, 2002. The medical expert who testified in the workers’ comp case on her behalf did not see her until December 17, 2003. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) found the testimony of claimant and her doctor both credible, but found that workers’ compensation benefits could not be awarded until December 17, 2003, as there was no competent medical evidence of her disability until that date (when she was seen by the doctor).

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) modified that portion of the decision of the WCJ and ordered that PA workers’ comp benefits should start as of October 21, 2002, based on the credible testimony of the claimant.

August 7, 2008

PA Court Addresses Notice Requirement for Work-Related Hearing Loss

by Glenn Neiman

Under the PA Workers’ Compensation Act, an injured worker must give his or her employer notice of the injury within 120 days of the injury. If notice is not given within 120 days of the work injury, a workers’ comp claim for the injury will be barred. This issue becomes somewhat more complicated when the injury is one which occurs over a period of years, such as a noise-induced hearing loss.

A recent case decided by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Crompton Corp. v. W.C.A.B. (King), found that the requirement of giving notice is triggered only when an injured worker is told by a doctor that he or she has suffered a loss of hearing as a result of exposure to noise at work. Until an injured worker is advised of this, there is no requirement that notice be given. The fact the injured employee may suspect, or even believe, that he has a work-related hearing loss is not enough to trigger the start of the 120 day notice period.

August 4, 2008

Psychological Injury Can Result From Work-Related Physical Injury

by Glenn Neiman

Many times in Pennsylvania workers’ comp cases we see an injured worker devastated by a physical injury. Once a provider for his or her family, the injured worker may find themselves home, unable to work, do any chores around the house or take part in hobbies or pleasurable activities. Frequently, this can lead to emotional strain in the household. This dramatic change in an injured worker’s life often leads to psychological symptoms, such as depression and anxiety. When the depression and anxiety results from a work-related injury, in PA, the new psychological condition can be added to the workers’ compensation case.

While case law has changed over the years, as to how long an injured worker has to add more injuries or diagnoses to a workers’ compensation case in Pennsylvania, a recent case from the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has confirmed that a workers’ comp claimant in PA can file a Petition to add a psychological condition to an accepted physical injury any time within three years of the latest payment of PA workers’ compensation benefits.

Though the claimant in this recent case, Campbell v. WCAB (Pittsburgh Post Gazette), ultimately lost in his attempt to add a psychological injury to his accepted physical injury, the Court disagreed with the Workers’ Compensation Judge that the claimant waited too long to file his Petition. The Court concluded that the Workers’ Compensation Judge was wrong about the statute of limitations, but the Workers’ Compensation Judge also found the medical evidence submitted by claimant not credible, so claimant still lost.

July 25, 2008

Total Disability PA Workers’ Compensation Benefits Continue For Injured Man Who Lost Both Arms

by Glenn Neiman

Ordinarily, an injured worker in Pennsylvania cannot receive both workers’ compensation total disability benefits and also wages. Generally speaking, if an injured worker in PA has returned to work, he or she is no longer, by definition, “totally disabled.” The injured worker may be entitled to partial workers’ compensation benefits (if a loss in earnings continues), but would not be entitled to total disability benefits.

A rare exception to this rule was recently addressed by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on July 22, 2008, when the Allegheny Power Service Corp. v. WCAB (Cockroft) decision was rendered.

Total disability benefits under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act are paid under Section 301(a). “Specific loss” benefits (benefits to compensate for the loss of use of a body part) are paid under Section 301(c). These specific loss benefits are paid regardless of whether there is any wage loss or not.

July 22, 2008

Termination of Workers’ Compensation Benefits in PA May Require Change of Condition

by Glenn Neiman

Not that long ago, a Pennsylvania workers’ compensation insurance company could terminate the benefits of an injured worker anytime they found a doctor to say the injured worker had fully recovered from his or her work injury. This encouraged the workers’ compensation insurance carriers to file Termination Petition after Termination Petition, until they found a doctor the Workers’ Compensation Judge believed. Fortunately, this is no longer the case in PA. The case that allowed such a luxury by the workers’ compensation insurance carrier, King v. WCAB, was overruled by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Lewis v. WCAB.

The law now, confirmed by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in Prebish v. WCAB, decided on July 14, 2008, is that the workers’ comp insurance company must have an opinion that the condition of the injured worker has changed since the last termination was adjudicated. This keeps the workers’ compensation insurance carriers from harassing the injured worker by filing an endless stream of Termination Petitions. To learn how to avoid being the victim of continued litigation by the workers’ compensation insurance carriers, contact an experienced Pennsylvania workers’ comp attorney.

July 11, 2008

Workers’ Comp Insurer in PA Has Absolute Right to Subrogation

by Glenn Neiman

While, in Pennsylvania, an injured worker generally cannot sue his or her employer for causing the injury, the injured worker is free to sue a third party. For example, the injured worker could file an action against a manufacturer of a product which caused the injury, or another driver who caused an accident. When an injured worker receives a settlement or a verdict leading to the recovery of money from a third party, Section 319 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act says the workers’ compensation insurance carrier is entitled to be repaid all or part of the benefits the carrier paid to the injured worker.

Though the goals of Section 319 are somewhat logical – to keep a party from receiving a double benefit, the result of this law is often troublesome. In effect, between the repayment made from the recovery, and the credit the workers’ compensation insurance carrier enjoys against future wage and medical benefits, the injured worker often winds up netting absolutely nothing from the third party case. Considering that the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act does not provide for any compensation for pain and suffering, it seems terribly unjust that the injured worker can recover money in a third party case, intended to compensate for pain and suffering, and yet end up netting nothing.

Recently, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decided the case of Gorman v. WCAB. Here, the claimant settled his workers’ comp case. At that time, he was not pursuing a third party suit. In the Compromise & Release Agreement (the document used when a workers’ compensation case is settled in PA), the parties stated that there was no lien for any third party case. After the workers’ compensation settlement was done, the claimant successfully pursued a third party case and recovered money.

July 8, 2008

Medical Bills In PA Workers’ Comp May Be Payable Even When Not Submitted On Proper Forms

by Glenn Neiman

As a general rule, the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act requires medical providers to submit their bills to the workers’ compensation insurance carrier on the correct forms. Again, the usual rule is that the workers’ comp insurance carrier is not required to pay bills until they are submitted on the proper forms (and until supporting documentation is provided).

A recent decision by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, however, confirms the beliefs of us Pennsylvania workers’ compensation attorneys, who feel this technical step is not always necessary. In Shelton v. WCAB, decided by the Court on June 26, 2008, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier was ordered to pay medical bills even though the bills were not submitted on the proper forms.

In this case, the Court drew a distinction between the situations when the claim has already been accepted as opposed to one where there has never been liability of the workers’ compensation insurance carrier established. When the liability of the workers’ compensation insurance carrier has not yet been established, then bills must be on the proper forms. When we are dealing with an accepted claim, then this technicality may not be necessary.

June 26, 2008

Workers Compensation Decision on IRE Vacated by Commonwealth Court

by Glenn Neiman

In a previous blog entry, I mentioned the April 28, 2008 decision by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in Diehl v. WCAB, which greatly limited what a workers’ compensation insurance carrier in Pennsylvania can do with an Impairment Rating Evaluation (IRE). This decision was very favorable to the injured worker. Unfortunately, on June 24, 2008, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued an order, and granted the workers’ compensation insurance company’s application for reargument, and vacated the prior decision. This means that, for now, the law returns as it had been before the Diehl decision was issued (meaning the workers’ comp insurance company does NOT have to show job availability when trying to have benefits changed to partial based on an IRE).

Though there will be reargument on this case, and a new decision will be issued, many of us Pennsylvania workers’ compensation attorneys doubt that the new decision will be as favorable as the one which has been vacated. We will, of course, post about the new decision when it is made.

June 4, 2008

PA Injured Worker Can Lose Workers’ Comp Benefits When Receiving a Notice

by Glenn Neiman

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.

June 2, 2008

Supreme Court of PA accepts Appeal on Amending Description of Injury on NCP

by Glenn Neiman

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.