Articles Posted in Workers Compensation Litigation

No matter what kind of company one works for, as long as one is an “employee,” as defined in the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act (and not otherwise excluded by other laws, such as federal employees, military personnel, maritime workers and railroad workers), one is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits if an injury is suffered while at work. This is true whether one works for a sole proprietor, small corporation or a major international conglomerate.

When a work injury takes place in PA, notice is required to be given to the “employer” within 120 days of the injury. Failure to do so can result in the injured worker being barred from receiving any workers’ compensation benefits for the injury. This can get more complicated when we are dealing with a sole proprietorship or a small corporation, where the owner is the injured worker. To whom must this notice be provided?

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania recently addressed this issue in Erie Insurance Property & Casualty Company v. Heater (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board). In this case, the injured worker was the owner of a sole proprietorship. By definition, the “employer” had notice of the work injury as soon as the injured worker had the injury, since they are the same entity.

Under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, an injured worker has 120 days to provide notice of a work injury to his or her employer.  If notice is not given within this time, a Claim Petition may be barred.  The time period for giving notice can be extended where the work injury, or its relation to work, is not immediately apparent to the injured worker (“The Discovery Rule”).

Recently, in The Hershey Company v. Woodhouse (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board), the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania looked at what constitutes sufficient “notice” to meet the legal requirement.  Here, the injured worker had a history of diabetic neuropathy and had developed a right diabetic foot ulcer in June of 2017. On November 6, 2017, the injured worker passed out at work and was taken to a hospital.  Subsequently, the injured worker sent an e-mail to his employer that he had emergency foot surgery.  A below-the-knee amputation was performed on the right leg.  The e-mail did not mention any relation to work.

On December 1, 2019, Claimant filed a Claim Petition, alleging that “he suffered a work injury on November 6, 2017, consisting of an aggravation of a diabetic foot ulcer and a below-the-knee amputation of his right leg.”

When a person is injured at work in Pennsylvania, and the injury is not accepted by the workers’ compensation insurance carrier, the injured worker must file a Claim Petition to seek benefits.  Once the Claim Petition is filed, the insurance carrier has 20 days to file an Answer, responding to the allegations of the Claim Petition.  If the workers’ comp insurance company does not file an Answer within those 20 days, the injured worker can file what is (informally) called a “Yellow Freight Motion.”

If this Motion is granted, all well-pled facts in the Claim Petition are deemed admitted.  The appellate courts in PA have told us that this Motion is not the same as a default judgement.  Ongoing disability can still be challenged by the insurance carrier, and proofs by the injured worker can be required by the WCJ.

A recent case decided by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Hollis v. C&R Laundry Services LLC (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board), addressed what constitutes a “well-pled fact” when it comes to the description of injury.  Here, the employee was a truck driver who was involved in a motor vehicle accident while working.  When the injury was denied, a Claim Petition was filed.  The injury was alleged to be “left rotator cuff pathology/cervical left side radiculopathy, [Cervical, Thoracic, Lumbar] sprain/strain.”

To prevail in a PA workers’ compensation case, typically the successful party presents the testimony of a medical expert, whose opinion is accepted by a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ).  This expert opinion must be “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.”  What is encompassed by those words is a bit of an art.

A recent case from Commonwealth Court of PA, UPMC Pinnacle Hospitals v. Renee Orlandi (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board) [albeit an unreported case], touched on this issue, which may be of some interest to our readers.  When we present the testimony of a medical expert, the opinion of that expert need not be to concrete one-hundred precent certainty.  Few things in medicine reach that level, as a practical matter.  Instead, the opinions must simply be to a “reasonable degree of medical certainty.”

Pennsylvania courts have specifically found that there are no “magic words” that must be uttered by a medical expert for the opinion of that expert to be competent and be a sufficient foundation for the WCJ to base findings.  A reviewing court, such as the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB), or the Commonwealth Court of PA, cannot pick a sentence here or there from a medical deposition, out of context.  Instead, the appellate court must see if the testimony, as a whole, contains “a requisite level of certainty necessary to deem it unequivocal.”

Over the past several years, PA has legalized the use of medical marijuana.  Given the current difficulties in dealing with the opioid epidemic, this would seem to be a reasonable tool to help injured workers (and anyone else suffering from chronic pain) deal with their conditions without the use of narcotic medications.  The controversial status of marijuana, and both PA and Federal law, however, gave us great uncertainty as to whether use of medical marijuana would be covered under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act.  Two recent decisions by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania answer this question quite clearly in the affirmative.

Notably, the Medical Marijuana Act [MMA] specifically states that “Nothing in [the MMA] shall be construed to require an insurer or a health plan, whether paid for by Commonwealth funds or private funds, to provide coverage for medical marijuana.”  Additionally, marijuana remains illegal under Federal law.  These two factors have made payment for medical marijuana under the PA Workers’ Compensation Act (Act) nearly impossible.  Until now.

The two companion cases on this issue of first impression are Appel v. GWC Warranty Corporation (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board) and Teresa L. Fegley, as Executrix of the Estate of Paul Sheetz v. Firestone Tire & Rubber (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board).  Both of these injured workers suffered from severe pain, one from multiple back surgeries and the other from several conditions, including “herniated disc at L5-S1, cervical sprain, disc herniation at L4-L5, lumbar radiculopathy, cervical strain with cervical myofascial spasm, major depression, and aggravation of cervical degenerative spondylosis of degenerative disc disease.”