by

It happens all too often. A worker suffers an injury to his or her neck or back. Though the injured worker never had neck or back pain before the injury, the workers’ compensation insurance company questions the claim. According to the workers’ compensation insurance carrier, the injured worker is suffering from “degenerative disc disease,” not a work injury. In reality, of course, it is the work injury which has made the degenerative disc disease start to cause pain. In Pennsylvania, an “aggravation” of a pre-existing condition, like degenerative disc disease, is considered a “new injury,” allowing an injured worker to collect PA workers’ comp benefits.

That is only half the battle, unfortunately. Once the degenerative disc disease has been made symptomatic by the work injury, the symptoms often do not stop. Frequently, the injured worker will try many “conservative” treatment options, such as medications and physical therapy. Failing that, doctors might try various types of injections, including epidural steroid injections. Sadly, though, time and again, the injured worker remains in pain despite these efforts.

Once the pain has continued for longer than six months, and various conservative treatment options have failed to reduce the symptoms, doctors start to talk about surgery as an option. There is no doubt that spinal surgery, whether for the neck or the back, is a last resort. As with any major surgical procedure, there are serious consequences which can result from such an operation. Moreover, there is no guarantee the injured worker will be any better after surgery.

Continue reading

by

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Though this new procedure was revoked in a later e-mail on May 19, 2008, this is clearly the direction that office is taking.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.

by

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.

Continue reading

by

As you may recall, last month I brought up the case of Mason v. WCAB (Joy Mining Machinery), in which the Commonwealth Court of PA punished an injured worker merely for taking his pension. In that case, the Court had said workers’ compensation benefits will be suspended, unless the injured worker shows either that he or she is disabled from all work, or that he or she is actively seeking work.

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has struck again, in Penn State v. WCAB (Hensal), decided on May 19, 2008. In this case, the injured worker argued that his workers’ comp benefits should not be stopped, even though he took his pension, because he was actively seeking work. As proof, the injured worker testified that he signed up for Career Link (a program run by the State of Pennsylvania) and periodically checked websites and newspaper ads, but found no work. Though the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ), and the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB), agreed and found the injured worker’s efforts showed that he is truly looking for work and has not “voluntarily removed himself from the labor market,” the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania disagreed, and ordered the workers’ compensation benefits stopped.

Specifically, The Court said:

Continue reading

by

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.

Continue reading

by

Regardless of whether we are seeing an injured worker suffering from a trauma to his or her arm, leg, neck, back, shoulder or any other part of the body, the common thing we are seeing is pain. Often, this is a chronic, unrelenting, pain. These are usually the cases when surgery either has been attempted and has not been successful, or when the doctors do not feel surgery would relieve the pain. Frequently, the only way to even take the edge off this excruciating pain is by taking pain-relieving medications, often narcotics.

One of the more “popular” narcotic medications used in Pennsylvania workers’ compensation matters is OxyCodone (OxyContin). The manufacturer of OxyContin, Purdue Pharma, has recently developed three new dosage strengths. These three new dosage levels now make a total of seven dosage strengths of OxyContin. In theory, this makes prescribing the proper dosage for every injured worker much easier.

With more usage of OxyCodone, and OxyContin, comes more abuse. Unfortunately for those injured workers who actually need this type of pain medication for relief, many people are using such drugs recreationally. Purdue Pharma has attempted to change the type of the OxyContin tablet, to make it less “useful” for recreational use, but so far, the FDA has not approved the changes. According to this article, there were 42.2 million prescriptions written last year for Oxycodone.

by

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.

by

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.

Continue reading

by

It seems like such a basic thing. An injured worker goes to the doctor and gets a prescription. Big deal, right? What is there to think about? Well, maybe it isn’t so simple after all. Maybe there are some questions an injured worker should be asking when getting a prescription. When I came across this article, I started thinking that some of these ideas make a great deal of sense. The article seemed like a valuable resource to both my injured clients and the general public. I guess you could sum up some of these hints by reminding yourself to know what medication you are taking, why you are taking it, how to take it and how your body reacts to the medication. I would suggest anyone getting a prescription filled review this article.

by

Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD), also known as Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) is a horrible condition we see all too often resulting from work injuries. This condition can develop from a traumatic work injury, even what previously seemed to be a relatively minor one. Scientists still do not seem to know why RSD or CRPS develops.

The hallmark symptom of RSD or CRPS is unrelenting, often burning, pain. This character of pain, called “neuropathic” pain, is caused by irritation of the nerves in the affected area. Frequently, there are also changes in the skin or fingernails of the area as well (known as “trophic” changes). Sadly, there is no cure for RSD or CRPS, and doctors simply try to manage the symptoms of the patient as best they can.

Research is continuing in this area, and there are some promising things on the horizon. A recent study, led by local RSD/CRPS specialist Dr. Robert Schwartzman, found that the drug ketamine, given in an anesthetic dosage, may relieve pain in RSD/CRPS patients who have failed with other treatments. Administration of ketamine while the patient is placed in a five-day coma has been successfully performed in other countries, but has not been approved as yet in the United States. Obviously, in the workers’ comp setting, treatment not approved by the FDA probably does not need to be paid for by the PA workers’ compensation insurance carrier.

Continue reading
Contact Information
Trevose
5 Neshaminy Interplex Dr, #205
Trevose, PA 19053
Phone: (215) 638-7500 [Formerly (215) 244-8101]Fax: (267) 803-6298
Lehigh Valley
609 Hamilton Mall
Allentown, PA 18101
Phone: (610) 740-1002Fax: (267) 803-6298
Pineville P.O. Box
P.O. Box 196
Pineville, PA 18946-0196

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2026, Brilliant & Neiman, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design