Workers Comp Appeals

March 23, 2016

PA Supreme Court Grants Appeal in Protz

As we discussed back in September, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania rendered an important decision for the IRE process when the Court decided the matter of M.A. Protz v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Derry Area SD). The delegation of power by the PA legislature, as we noted, was found to be unconstitutional. We were left with several questions, the main one being whether appeal would be accepted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

The answer to this question has now been found – the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has accepted the appeal filed by both sides. The issues to be decided can be seen here and here.

We look forward to the clarification by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and we hope that the decision rendered answers most, if not all, of our remaining questions. We will certainly report of this development when it happens.

February 19, 2015

Pennsylvania has New Rules for Practice and Procedure in Workers’ Compensation Matters

by Glenn Neiman

Recently, we attended a seminar to be briefed on changes in the rules, formally known as the Special Rules of Administrative Practice and Procedure before Workers’ Compensation Judges or the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (each has a separate set of rules). Since our practice is limited to representing injured workers in Pennsylvania workers’ compensation cases, it is critical that we be aware of all aspects of the system.

Perhaps it would be wise first to understand where the Rules of Administrative Practice and Procedure fit into the system. As we have mentioned before in this blog, workers’ compensation laws vary widely from State to State. Here, the law starts with the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, which was created back in 1915 and amended many times since. This law, and its amendments, were written and enacted by the PA legislature. The law is then interpreted by the appellate courts in Pennsylvania. The process by which we litigate these cases, through the Workers Compensation Judge (WCJ) and Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB), are dictated by these Rules of Administrative Practice and Procedure.

Included in the changes to the Rules of Administrative Practice and Procedure before Workers’ Compensation Judges are how cases are litigated against the Uninsured Employers’ Guaranty Fund (UEGF), the fund that is available when an employer fails to carry PA workers’ comp insurance. There were also changes or amendments to what must be contained within Stipulations of Fact, to the timing of the serving of subpoenas, to the availability of a motion like a Motion for Summary Judgment (as in civil law), and changes to initial hearing procedures and pleadings.

January 18, 2012

Workers’ Compensation Specialty Coming to Pennsylvania

by Glenn Neiman

As attorneys who limit their practice to representing the injured worker in PA workers’ comp cases, we are thrilled by the recent announcement that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has approved the process of creating a “certified workers’ compensation attorney” in Pennsylvania (or, in other words, a workers’ compensation specialist).

We have seen the damage done to cases when an injured worker trusts a general practitioner to handle a Pennsylvania workers’ comp case. The Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act is a complicated piece of legislation. As loyal readers of our blog know, this is a frequent topic of cases decided by the appellate courts in PA. Trusting a workers’ compensation case to an attorney not experienced in that area of law is akin to having an orthopedist handle your coronary artery bypass surgery. Just not a good idea.

A work-related injury can cause tremendous disruption, and loss, to both the injured worker and his and her family; we are thrilled that in the near future, that injured worker can have the confidence that he or she is selecting a “certified workers’ compensation attorney.” We, of course, look forward to becoming “certified workers’ compensation attorneys” as soon as the process for the testing and certification is completed.

October 26, 2011

Election of Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania Judges

by Glenn Neiman

Over the years, we have had blog entries on many different topics of interest to the injured worker in PA. One theme we have never dealt with, however, is the emotionally-charged area of politics. While we generally try to avoid politics, we would be remiss if we did not comment about one of the candidates for Judge on the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

As loyal readers of our blog know, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is the next appellate level, above the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB). This Court must address many issues directly impacting the lives of injured workers in PA. Judges on this Court are elected in the general election. We believe it is important for voters to be informed, allowing them to make the best decisions possible.

One of the candidates for Commonwealth Court Judge in the election coming up on November 8 is Kathryn Boockvar. Back in June of this year, we attended the 10th Annual Workers’ Compensation Conference in Hershey, PA, which is presented by The Pennsylvania Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. In addition to the many attorneys who practice in the area of PA workers’ comp, we noticed Ms. Boockvar in attendance. We were both impressed and encouraged that Ms. Boockvar was interested enough in the PA workers’ compensation system to attend such an event. In addition to her obvious interest in workers’ compensation, her resume shows that she spent much of her career representing disabled individuals.

May 9, 2011

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Accepts Appeal in Phoenixville Hospital v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Shoap)

by Glenn Neiman

Previously, we posted a blog entry on the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decision in Phoenixville Hospital v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Shoap). This was the decision where the Commonwealth Court was unmoved when the injured worker applied for every job in a Labor Market Survey and found none available to him. The Court said the workers’ compensation insurance carrier can still obtain a Modification or Suspension of workers’ comp benefits in this situation.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania accepted appeal in this matter on April 27, 2011. We will certainly keep our readers informed when the Supreme Court of PA reaches a decision.

April 27, 2011

PA Supreme Court Accepts Appeal in Robinson

by Glenn Neiman

Back in October, we blogged about the decision of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in City of Pittsburgh v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Robinson), which addressed what caused a presumption that an injured worker “retired,” entitling the workers’ comp insurance carrier to a suspension of workers’ compensation benefits.

The decision of the Commonwealth Court arguably made a murky area of the law even more confusing, but it also attempted to inject some compassion and logic into an aspect of law short on both.

For better or worse, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has accepted an appeal in this matter. Specifically, the issue for the Court to determine is:

July 20, 2010

PA Workers’ Comp Judge Agrees Armed Robbery is “Abnormal Working Condition” in Pennsylvania; Employer Appeals

by Glenn Neiman

Some time ago, we made a brief deviation from our normal course of not blogging about own active cases, to discuss a liquor store clerk who was robbed at gunpoint. The PA Liquor Control Board (LCB) denied the claim, stating that being robbed at gunpoint was not an “abnormal working condition” for a PA LCB clerk (remember that the next time you think of stepping into a State Store in Pennsylvania – armed robbery is simply accepted as a normal course of a day by management). We filed a Claim Petition on the clerk’s behalf and litigated the case.

We are pleased to report that the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) did not buy Defendant’s argument, and did not believe that society has degraded far enough such that a clerk can expect armed robbery on his or her normal day at work. In granting our Claim Petition, the WCJ rejected the Defendant’s attempt to expand the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania’s disastrous decision in of McLaurin v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (SEPTA), wherein the Court, in its infinite wisdom, found that a SEPTA driver’s normal workday includes being assaulted by a gun-wielding teen (sending the message, as we understand it, that anyone foolish enough to step on a SEPTA vehicle can expect to face such consequences).

Undaunted, however, the PA LCB has filed an appeal with the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB). It appears the PA LCB’s argument is that the WCJ was incorrect and Pennsylvania liquor stores are just as deadly as SEPTA vehicles (how very proud they must feel while making these arguments). We find it amazing, not to mention disheartening, that our own governmental agencies would be stooping to such disgraceful antics to deny a case. Rather than address what they clearly view as a “normal working condition,” perhaps by improving security methods, the PA LCB instead is trying to use its stubborn ignorance and incompetence as a basis to deny an injury to one of its own employees. How can one put any word other than “disgraceful” on that?

November 5, 2009

PA Workers‘ Compensation Appeal Board Reduced

by Glenn Neiman

When an aggrieved party wants to appeal a decision of a Workers’ Compensation Judge in PA, the first step is to the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB). Until recently, the WCAB was comprised of a total of 15 commissioners, who would travel throughout the State of Pennsylvania, holding oral arguments in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Scranton, Johnstown and Erie.

Unfortunately, due to budget difficulties faced by PA, the total of 15 commissioners on the WCAB has been drastically reduced. Right now, only five commissioners remain. Apparently, there will be another three commissioners named, when they are approved by the PA Senate.

This reduction in staffing is almost certain to have a negative effect on the speed with which WCAB decisions are issued. While we would love to provide a link for more information, there has been no official word on this development from the PA Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (other than to change the listed commissioners to the current total of five).

March 10, 2009

Appeal to PA Supreme Court Sought in PGW v. Workers’ Comp Appeal Board

by Glenn Neiman

As you may recall, in a recent blog entry, we mentioned the case of PGW v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Amodei). This was the case where the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated, unequivocally, that credit against pension benefits in PA workers’ comp is to be done on the net amount of the benefit, rather than the gross.

It has now come to our attention that the workers’ compensation insurance carrier in this case has filed a Petition for Allocatur with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, asking the State’s highest Court to accept an appeal in this matter.

As always, we will keep everyone posted on developments in this, and any other, PA workers’ comp matter. We also want to remind folks that we are happy to answer questions regarding any Pennsylvania workers’ compensation issues. You can contact us by telephone or e-mail, through our firm website.

January 15, 2009

Termination Petition Requires Proof of Actual Change of Condition in PA

by Glenn Neiman

As a Claimant’s lawyer, practicing exclusively in PA workers’ comp, I was thrilled when the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided Lewis v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) in 2007. The Court in Lewis limited a PA workers’ comp insurance company’s ability to continually file petitions to terminate a claimant’s workers’ comp benefits. Specifically, the Court held that a workers’ compensation insurance carrier in PA had to prove there was an actual change in condition from the previous adjudication of disability (again, for this case to be important, the injured worker had to have previously defended a Termination Petition).

There was some concern, however, with how the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania would interpret the Lewis decision. As we posted in a previous blog entry, the Commonwealth Court initially did properly follow Lewis. Last month, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania set claimant’s workers’ comp attorneys’ minds at ease, when they issued a decision in Delaware County v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board. Here, like in Lewis, the workers’ comp insurance company lost a Termination Petition, then filed another Termination Petition. Finding the workers’ compensation insurance carrier’s doctor credible when he testified the injured worker had fully recovered from the work-related injury, the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) granted the Termination Petition.

On appeal, the Commonwealth Court of PA, vacated the termination and remanded to the WCJ (sent the case back to the WCJ for additional findings). The Court found that the WCJ had granted the Termination Petition in error, because it was not enough to simply find the workers’ compensation insurance carrier’s doctor was credible when he testified that the injured worker had fully recovered from her work injury. Instead, the Court said the WCJ must first decide whether the workers’ comp insurance company proved that the claimant’s condition had changed from the time of the first Termination Petition to the time of the second. Only after that finding is made can the WCJ decide whether the workers’ compensation insurer proved the injured worker had fully recovered.